[csallen]

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no military solution to the North Korean conflict. If we strike first, they'll destroy Seoul in seconds and cause the largest near-instantaneous loss of life the world has ever seen. They don't even need nuclear weapons to do that.

As terrible as the North Korean regime is from a humanitarian perspective, they do seem relatively rational as far as international politics are concerned. The US has demonstrated an appetite for regime change, international law be damned, for decades and decades. If you're a weaker opponent, taking a hostage (Seoul) and making credible threats is a very effective strategy for self preservation.

Also, the number of conventional and nuclear weapons we have pointed at their country, from a very close proximity, at all times, is not something we might spend very much time thinking about ourselves, but is top of mind for them. Given their large losses of civilian life in the Korean war at the hands of the US, I'd imagine they'd take that stuff very seriously.

Anyway, none of this excuses the clear oppressiveness of Kim Jong Un's government. But it's not like they're the only nation that abuses its military power in threatening ways, and a strong case could be made that they're reacting to us just as we are reacting to them. Just don't expect the American media to dwell too long on how our actions could be considered provocative.

[adventured]

> If we strike first, they'll destroy Seoul in seconds and cause the largest near-instantaneous loss of life the world has ever seen. They don't even need nuclear weapons to do that.

That's incorrect analysis. Nothing like instantaneous destruction would occur without nuclear weapons. It would take months of perfect artillery fire to destroy Seoul, assuming 100% detonation rate, unlimited ammo and assuming zero artillery is destroyed. They would run out of ammo before destroying Seoul, even in the impossible perfect scenario.

"How much damage an initial attack would inflict depends on how many are used and on how much of the ordnance explodes. In 2010, North Korean forces fired about 170 shells at an island in the South, killing two civilians and two soldiers. Analysts later concluded that about 25 percent of the North’s shells failed to detonate.

"A study published by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability in 2012 accounting for these and other factors such as population density concluded that an initial artillery barrage by the North focused on military targets would result in nearly 3,000 fatalities, while one targeting civilians would kill nearly 30,000 people."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/asia/north-korea-so...

"A retired U.S. general said a Pentagon war scenario showed a conventional war with North Korea could result in about 20,000 deaths per day in South Korea, according to the Los Angeles Times."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/25/korean-war-simulation-by-dod...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-a...

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/how-north-korea-would...

[csallen]

Before he resigned, Steve Bannon said, "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us."

That's the most recent statement by a high-ranking government official that I've heard, but it's so high that it has to be an exaggeration. Anyway, to surpass Hiroshima, they don't need anywhere near that amount. They just need about 3x what your estimate says they had in 2012. Less if Seoul has grown in population density during that time.

[mcphage]

> That's incorrect analysis. Nothing like instantaneous destruction would occur without nuclear weapons. It would take months of perfect artillery fire to destroy Seoul, assuming 100% detonation rate, unlimited ammo and assuming zero artillery is destroyed. They would run out of ammo before destroying Seoul, even in the impossible perfect scenario.

If only there were something in between artillery shelling and nuclear weapons...

[MR4D]

There is almost always a military solution. It’s just that the outcome may not be “optimal”.

Clearly, some cases are way, way less than optimal.

D-day planning, for instance, was quite ugly. They planned for roughly 40% casualties just on securing the beachhead. That’s a military solution, but it sure sucked. Thankfully it worked out much better than the plan.

[Bendingo]

>I'd imagine they'd take that stuff very seriously

Indeed. Especially since the US refuses to end the Korean war by signing a peace treaty.

[perl4ever]

Wouldn't South Korea have to sign it, since the US is not at war with North Korea?