[dingaling]

Most North Korean artillery can't reach beyond the northern suburbs of Seoul.

It would cause mass casualties but by no means would the metropolis be 'obliterated'. There certainly wouldn't be 20 million dead unless everyone within the Greater Seoul area rushed north and threw themselves into the beaten-zone.

Assuming, of course, that the artillery troops follow their orders to fire.

[pdelbarba]

I have a hard time believing that the artillery would ever get the chance. There's maybe ten square miles where they could place artillery to successfully bombard Seoul. The entire area could easily be destroyed or remotely turned into a minefield by a cruise missile salvo or judicious application of artillery fire from a handful of batteries. I can't imagine there aren't plans in place to handle this concern very rapidly should tensions rise to that point.

Even assuming that there isn't a concentrated effort to destroy these emplacements quickly, it seems the amount of damage they could cause would be fairly limited by operational constraints[1]

[1] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-north-korea-...

[ckozlowski]

There are plans, yes. Lots of artillery, but it's aging, and as was pointed out earlier, the number of pieces they possess that can actually reach Seoul (the 203mm Koksan) is not very great.

As soon as they open fire, the counter-battery game begins. You can be sure the allies have photographed and analyzed every strip of dirt along the DMZ, looking for prepared positions so they can anticipate where the guns are and where they'd move to after a salvo. They'd be tracking the rounds as they come in and plotting where it originated from. 72 hours is a good estimate for how long that artillery battle would last; same estimate I've seen elsewhere.

But the concern of casualties are not necessarily from shells impacting, but the panic and disruption in order that comes from it. NK can cause enormous hardship just by flinging a few shells. They can hide many of their batteries and string out the battle by revealing pieces on day 3, 4, etc,. Even if they get destroyed, and even if they only get a few shells off, you'll have a news report saying shells are still falling on Seoul, and it will be a tremendous morale hit.

But the window is closing on how well the NK artillery will continue to be a credible threat, hence the rush for nuclear weapons.

[myrandomcomment]

There would be no day 3 or 4. The US knowns in detail every inch of the DMZ and the NK side. The US counter-battery is the best in the world. Every NK gun that fires would be bracket and destroyed in the 1st 30 minutes. After they are gone any other mapped location would be hit for good measure. The ROK Army and the US Army would start to roll right over the DMZ in the 1st hour. The Air Force and Army attack helicopters would wreck any armor the NK have very very quickly. The NK Army around the DMZ will collapse in the 1st day.

The only real issue we would have to worry about is NK using a nuke on Seoul or Tokyo. That is the major issue and it is why NK will never give up on their weapons. It is the only effect threat they have.

The US planners have sorted out the conventional war issues a long time ago. It is figuring out how to be 100% sure to remove the Nukes from the equation that has stopped us from just stepping on Kim like a roach and he knows that. That is the reason for the Nukes.

[ckozlowski]

I'd sure like to believe you're right. While I have every reason to believe the allies would prevail, I'm also wary of overly optimistic timelines.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[myrandomcomment]

I hope so too. For the most part people do not understand just how over powered the US military is compared to the rest of the world. The worlds largest Air Force is the USAF, the world 2nd largest Air Forces the US Army.

The surgical dismantling of the air defenses around Baghdad in the 1st gulf war was a complete and udder-shock to the Russians. It was the 3rd largest and sophistcated in the world. We removed it in 48 hours for almost no loss. That was with 1980 tech where you needed someone to hold the lasers on target.

We could have ended the 2nd Iraq war and Afganistain in a few months if the military was under the same rules of engagement as WW2. However the destruction and civilian death would be appalling. If there is a war started by NK it is very likely the military would not have the constrains placed on it like Iraq or Afganistain. It would most likely look like WW2. Think Dresden.

The job of the military is to kill people and break things. When they are told to win without the limits we place on them now it would be terrifying.

PS. I know people will ask. Let’s say you are in a city and there are baddies in a building shooting at you. Right now because of constrains to civilian damage, you get the fun job of attacking the location to clear them out with your squad. It sucks and someone on your team is likely to get wounded. If the limits are removed, you call in a fire mission, building is removed from planet, move on to next one. That is what a war with NK would look like. Are we evil for doing this? I am not sure. I believe that fighting this way will end a conflict much quicker over all and in the long term be better for all those involved.