North Korea threatens US troops with 'final destruction'
116 replies, posted
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704018]That doesn't answer my question in any discernible way.[/QUOTE]
Even if the city doesn't risk getting "flattened", Seoul getting shelled is still a massive thing that nobody wants to see. One can assume that the risk of a shell rain is something that the parties involved in the conflict will take into account when making decisions that may affect the relation with NK, and that's what translates into the more dramatic-sounding "holding hostage"-phrase.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704077]tell me the ways of war oh wise one[/QUOTE]
They have five hundred 170mm tubes within range of Seul. Say North Korea manages to fire them all even once before getting F15'd off the face of the earth, at a population density of 17,000/km[sup]2[/sup], that is [I]still[/I] five hundred shells. Let's assume the shells are comparable to 155mm shells, just for the sake of easily accessible data, each will have a lethal zone of roughly 50 metres. With even distribution, and assuming roughly half the people in thek lethal zone actually will die, and we do [I]not[/I] account for collapsing buildings and debries. One person for every rough sixth metre. Each 50m radius circle is 2500m[sup]2[/sup] in area. That should give us roughly 400 people in each shell's blast, meaning by our vauge calculation, 200 possible dead, per shell. Puts us at 100,000. This is obviously higher than it most likely would be, but still. That is [I]a lot[/I] of people.
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
Now, [I]of course[/I], I have not taken into account how some shells will probably miss, some will probably hit in the middle of massive gatherings, some will land in spots others already cleared, some with impact buildings and do less/more harm depending on how sturdy the building is and how many people are in it. But even a tenth of my rough-ass estimate, 10,000, is still much, much higher than anyone can accept. That's 9/11, three times over. And the US is still butthurt over 9/11.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39703727]Why does this myth keep getting perpetrated?[/QUOTE]
Its not a myth, Seoul, a city of millions, is like 30 miles from the border, and NK has a ton of artillery ready to fire on it. If anyone starts a war, Seoul will be absolutely devastated within minutes
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;39703597]Nor are you in the position to determine what course of action the peoples of the Korean peninsula may or may not (wish to) take. I admit, I dislike innocent civilians dying just as much as you, but I equally dislike it when people advocate stagnating a horrible situation in order to simply avoid a perceived worst case scenario. The longer Seoul is in the sights of a crazed dictator's brainwashed army and artillery, the longer meaningful progress of any kind is withheld from both sides.
Of course, it's easy for those not directly involved to play the voice of reason. You'd rather not risk potential change, because anything other than the present situation is somehow, inexplicably, unequivocally worse.[/QUOTE]
It is not a perceived worst case scenario, it's a best case scenario, a worst case scenario would be the North steam rolling over the DMZ with tunnel network they built before the US or the South can react.
Even if we say "Fine, fuck math, let's assume every shell is as effective as the average car bomb in wherethefuckistan", you still end up in the 10 - 50k range of casualties.
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
You seem to count buildings as the only measure of destruction, not human lives. Oddly common for you, it seems.
[sp]Ad-hominem'd :V[/sp]
[QUOTE=Riller;39704282]Even if we say "Fine, fuck math, let's assume every shell is as effective as the average car bomb in wherethefuckistan", you still end up in the 10 - 50k range of casualties.
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
You seem to count buildings as the only measure of destruction, not human lives. Oddly common for you, it seems.
[sp]Ad-hominem'd :V[/sp][/QUOTE]
It would probably be worse than your average car bomb since Seoul has a lot of high rise buildings, so there will be fires that just won't be able to be stopped, there'll be structural damage and as if to rub salt in the wounds there'll be some very nasty falling glass shards for anyone on the street.
You know, all that on top of the actual shells.
You guys are forgetting chem shells.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39704307]It would probably be worse than your average car bomb since Seoul has a lot of high rise buildings, so there will be fires that just won't be able to be stopped, there'll be structural damage and as if to rub salt in the wounds there'll be some very nasty falling glass shards for anyone on the street.
You know, all that on top of the actual shells.[/QUOTE]
Car bombs have more explosive force but less fragmentation in general. Houses in the middle east are generally of shoddier construction than in the 'modern' parts of Asia. However, the artillery will have to rely a lot less on luck compared to car bombs, since car bombs kinda can end up killing no one if the timing is shitty and no one is around. The artillery would basically blanket the place, meaning if one shell hits an empty warehouse, another's prolly landing right in a shopping mall or some grim shit like that. My conservative estimate would be like, 10-20k deaths. Three to five nine-elevens, at once. Gotta wonder, is this [I]acceptable[/I] losses?
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=laserguided;39704384]You guys are forgetting chem shells.[/QUOTE]
Math too hard, can't be arsed. I did the calculations for if Seul was a flat field full of dudes getting shelled, then cut it down quite conservatively to not be some sorta apocalyptic doom-sayer.
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
But hey, how about we go lower. Five thousand? Is five thousand dead civilians an okay sacrifice? Five thousand innocent South Koreans going on through their daily lives, only to hear a sudden whistle, followed by nothing as they're torn to shreds by artillery. How about four? Three? Three thousand was what died on 9/11, after all. Is three thousand an okay number?
[QUOTE=Riller;39704394]But hey, how about we go lower. Five thousand? Is five thousand dead civilians an okay sacrifice? Five thousand innocent South Koreans going on through their daily lives, only to hear a sudden whistle, followed by nothing as they're torn to shreds by artillery. How about four? Three? Three thousand was what died on 9/11, after all. Is three thousand an okay number?[/QUOTE]
Can you stop straw manning? I never said that there would be low or negligible casualties. Any bombardment would undoubtedly be horrible. But people are saying "hurr the whole city will be wiped off the map!" and it's ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39704272]It is not a perceived worst case scenario, it's a best case scenario, a worst case scenario would be the North steam rolling over the DMZ with tunnel network they built before the US or the South can react.[/QUOTE]
You are implying an all-out assault across the DMZ, tunnels or no, [I]hasn't[/I] been the staple military doctrine for attacking South Korea should shit hit the fan for the duration of the DMZ's existence. Likewise, an all-out assault across the DMZ is exactly what South Korea is most prepared for, along with the foreign (mostly US) military personnel in tow. It's the only thing the South CAN be prepared for, outside of evacuating civilians from around artillery hotspots and towns neighboring the DMZ.
IIRC a military officer (not the really high ranking one) defected some years ago, and in his testimony he revealed that the generally agreed upon tactic was to indeed steamroll across the DMZ with their army [I]in corpore[/I]. This in turn implies that strategic/political suicide is anticipated and that should it come to war, the objective is to destroy as much as possible in the tiny time frame they have before allied forces arrive en masse in crushing numbers - not accounting for local military resistance, which is obviously technologically generations ahead. The fall of North Korea as-is is inevitable - it's just a matter of how much damage we let them do before they get put down for good.
[QUOTE=Riller;39704394]Car bombs have more explosive force but less fragmentation in general. Houses in the middle east are generally of shoddier construction than in the 'modern' parts of Asia. However, the artillery will have to rely a lot less on luck compared to car bombs, since car bombs kinda can end up killing no one if the timing is shitty and no one is around. The artillery would basically blanket the place, meaning if one shell hits an empty warehouse, another's prolly landing right in a shopping mall or some grim shit like that. My conservative estimate would be like, 10-20k deaths. Three to five nine-elevens, at once. Gotta wonder, is this [I]acceptable[/I] losses?
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
Math too hard, can't be arsed. I did the calculations for if Seul was a flat field full of dudes getting shelled, then cut it down quite conservatively to not be some sorta apocalyptic doom-sayer.
[editline]24th February 2013[/editline]
But hey, how about we go lower. Five thousand? Is five thousand dead civilians an okay sacrifice? Five thousand innocent South Koreans going on through their daily lives, only to hear a sudden whistle, followed by nothing as they're torn to shreds by artillery. How about four? Three? Three thousand was what died on 9/11, after all. Is three thousand an okay number?[/QUOTE]
There are no acceptable deaths, the only people who say that deaths are acceptable are the same people who are chomping at the bit for war over 9/11 or some other bullshit when they get to sit at home with a cup of tea watching it on the news.
I propose that in the future at any time there may be a war it should be put to a public vote, anyone who votes no to the war can carry about their daily lives like nothing happens, anyone who votes yes is instantly drafted into the military in preparation to go to war.
And honestly, assuming a flat field you really could go for Somme levels of death, and that's not taking into account the sheer volume of shells that the North will be pouring on Seoul as well as the fact that shells could quite easily get a glancing blow on a high rise and hit multiple floors at the same time, if they hit an office block around lunch time each shell would easily be taking out tens of people at a time.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704506]Can you stop straw manning? I never said that there would be low or negligible casualties. Any bombardment would undoubtedly be horrible. But people are saying "hurr the whole city will be wiped off the map!" and it's ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Well, you're passing it off like the North Korean artillery is nothing. The way you're wording your posts, you're coming off as if anything but physically flattening the city is not enough for the North to be an actual threat.
[QUOTE=Riller;39704575]Well, you're passing it off like the North Korean artillery is nothing. The way you're wording your posts, you're coming off as if anything but physically flattening the city is not enough for the North to be an actual threat.[/QUOTE]
Low reading comprehension skills
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704603]Low reading comprehension skills[/QUOTE]
...Right.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39703727]Why does this myth keep getting perpetrated?[/QUOTE]
This post implies that the North is [I]not[/I] holding Seul "hostage" (A terrible way to word it if you ask me, but it's the term used). Saying Seul is not held "hostage" implies that the North's percived capability to cause massive death in incredibly short time is nonexistant, otherwise, one would say that it is indeed held hostage.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39703854]Because I'm not making the claim? But I'll humor you.
[url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul[/url]
[/quote]
In this post, you are claiming to not make claims (Claimception!), right after implying that the North is not capable of wrecking shit on Seul.
[quote]Need more? Look at the shelling of Yeonpyeong island in 2010. Withing minutes of the attack, South Korean batteries responded by firing back and destroying North Korean artillery positions. We know exactly where their guns are and how to deal with them. North Korea has no air force to speak of besides a few antiquated squadrons of Migs from the 70's. They would not be able to concentrate fire on Seoul long enough to do anywhere near enough damage to "destroy the city". The entire idea is just, as the Popular Mechanics article states, a cartoon and a scary buzz word used by the media to draw in views.[/quote]
This is the only case of actual arguments with examples and so forth you've used.
[quote]How would "nearly entire SK burn"?[/QUOTE]
Arguing semantics, but yes, 'nearly entire SK burn' is an overstatement. Destruction would still be massive.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704018]That doesn't answer my question in any discernible way.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it does. The bombing Seul would recieve would be roughly comparable to how bombing sorties of WWII wrecked German industrial centres with horrible civilian casualties.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704077]tell me the ways of war oh wise one[/QUOTE]
Nice Ad Hominem, bro. Teach me the way of debate, oh wise one.
[QUOTE=Riller;39704683]...Right.
This post implies that the North is [I]not[/I] holding Seul "hostage" (A terrible way to word it if you ask me, but it's the term used). Saying Seul is not held "hostage" implies that the North's percived capability to cause massive death in incredibly short time is nonexistant, otherwise, one would say that it is indeed held hostage.
In this post, you are claiming to not make claims (Claimception!), right after implying that the North is not capable of wrecking shit on Seul.
This is the only case of actual arguments with examples and so forth you've used.
Arguing semantics, but yes, 'nearly entire SK burn' is an overstatement. Destruction would still be massive.
Actually, it does. The bombing Seul would recieve would be roughly comparable to how bombing sorties of WWII wrecked German industrial centres with horrible civilian casualties.
Nice Ad Hominem, bro. Teach me the way of debate, oh wise one.[/QUOTE]
what are you doing
None of those points to me "passing it off like the North Korean artillery is nothing". You're just mad because you wasted 10 minutes fighting your own straw man delusion of what I really said.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704804]what are you doing
None of those points to me "passing it off like the North Korean artillery is nothing". You're just mad because you wasted 10 minutes fighting your own straw man delusion of what I really said.[/QUOTE]
One person said Seul was held hostage. You said it wasn't because it wouldn't be 'flattened' like fuckin' Dredsen.
[QUOTE=Riller;39704844]One person said Seul was held hostage. You said it wasn't because it wouldn't be 'flattened' like fuckin' Dredsen.[/QUOTE]
No, once again you demonstrate poor reading comprehension. I never said that Seoul wasn't "held hostage". I said that it wasn't "held hostage" because it wouldn't be "destroyed in minutes". Popular Mechanics agrees with me.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704863]No, once again you demonstrate poor reading comprehension. I never said that Seoul wasn't "held hostage". I said that it wasn't "held hostage" because it wouldn't be "destroyed in minutes". Popular Mechanics agrees with me.[/QUOTE]
Then you're arguing semantics. Is ten thousand deaths in five minutes not destruction?
[QUOTE=Riller;39704898]Then you're arguing semantics. Is ten thousand deaths in five minutes not destruction?[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ, I've said this about 3 times in a row. For fucks sake. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Read my last post. Pull out an English-to-whatever language you speak dictionary and read my last post.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39703727]Why does this myth keep getting perpetrated?[/QUOTE]
its not a myth, im korean, there is a reason why we're not fighting the NK at the moment even though we possess superior military and alliances
while it wont erase seoul off the map per se, its the casualties and economic consequences that is too great to simply risk it
try go to seoul, its unbelievably congregated and compact, not to mention seoul is really the heart of SK's economics, there's thousands of important financial buildings and etc.
by the way, you're wrong about yeonpyeong island, there was a whole outrage about the government being too slow to respond to the firing, even a north korean defector agreed with that since it took 13 minutes to actually fire back
[URL]http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/12/01/2010120101038.html[/URL]
the casualties on NK's side is unknown ( the defector said its very unlikely it got damaged ) and our media is known to exaggerate numbers to calm the public
[QUOTE=doommarine23;39703702]That's ignoring that in our current situation, North Korea is a military dictatorship where everyone suffers.
[url]http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=4f1e0899533f7680e78d03281fe18baf&wit_id=4f1e0899533f7680e78d03281fe18baf-2-1[/url]
I'm not sure I really want to go to war, but I can understand the rationale when stuff like [I]that[/I] is happening.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I can understand wanting to be the big heroes and saving everyone in NK, but I wonder how many people would die if Seoul were attacked versus how many would actually be saved by toppling the regime. It's a shame that there isn't much of a proper way of knowing, and I just find it hard to think that the mere chance of saving them is worth the very definite destruction of Seoul, and the fact that we've even gotta weigh up their lives against each other is what frightens me most.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;39705029]its not a myth, im korean, there is a reason why we're not fighting the NK at the moment even though we possess superior military and alliances
while it wont erase seoul off the map per se, its the casualties and economic consequences that is too great to simply risk it
try go to seoul, its unbelievably congregated and compact, not to mention seoul is really the heart of SK's economics, there's thousands of important financial buildings and etc.
by the way, you're wrong about yeonpyeong island, there was a whole outrage about the government being too slow to respond to the firing, even a north korean defector agreed with that since it took 13 minutes to actually fire back
[URL]http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/12/01/2010120101038.html[/URL]
the casualties on NK's side is unknown ( the defector said its very unlikely it got damaged ) and our media is known to exaggerate numbers to calm the public[/QUOTE]
.....
OK, I'm going to say this one more time.
People earlier in the thread were saying:
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39687920]It's not about politics, it's all about the fact that the North has a fucking ton of artillerly pointed directly at Seoul.
If the south tries anything or anyone tries anything the North can have Seoul literally taken off the face of the earth in under an hour.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39688055]The thing is I don't think you fully grasp the horror of what would happen.
You declare war on the North, millions of people in Seoul are killed in minutes as shells start to rain down on their heads.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39688049]There is no way that you'd be able to stop Seoul from being flattened, it would be impossible to take out enough of NK's artillery to substantially extend the lifetime of Seoul, it's not happening, it's the one big trump card that the North has as well as their tunnel network.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Riller;39687403]Of course, yes, Seul would be gone within minutes.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cone;39693320]Of course, that's largely out of the question, since a war would almost certainly mean everyone in Seoul dying horribly. I'd hope that some kind of peaceful resolution could be reached, but that's seeming more and more unlikely with every announcement.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39698731]I don't believe everyone in the North is super brain washed but a large part of them will be and if we invaded you'd see them fight back, and if we killed the leaders you'd see some of them commit mass suicide AS WELL as Seoul being turned into powdered bone, smashed concrete and chunks of charred meat.[/QUOTE]
This is objectively false. There is no chance of "Seoul literally taken off the face of the earth in under an hour" or "everyone in Seoul dying horribly". Artillery is simply not capable of doing such damage in such a short amount of time. I supported my claim with evidence that nobody has refuted or disagreed with.
Then, Riller comes in and says "Well X amount of people would still die, and you're saying there would be no destruction!" and other strawmen arguments.
I'm not saying that there would be no damage to Seoul. In fact I believe many thousands would be killed. However, people in this thread have turned the notion into a cartoony farce where an entire city is somehow magically vanished in mere minutes, an impossible feat.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39705158].....
OK, I'm going to say this one more time.
People earlier in the thread were saying:
This is objectively false. There is no chance of "Seoul literally taken off the face of the earth in under an hour" or "everyone in Seoul dying horribly". Artillery is simply not capable of doing such damage in such a short amount of time. I supported my claim with evidence that nobody has refuted or disagreed with.
Then, Riller comes in and says "Well X amount of people would still die, and you're saying there would be no destruction!" and other strawmen arguments.
I'm not saying that there would be no damage to Seoul. In fact I believe many thousands would be killed. However, people in this thread have turned the notion into a cartoony farce where an entire city is somehow magically vanished in mere minutes, an impossible feat.[/QUOTE]
i was responding at your statement which is more or less saying that NK holding SK's capital city hostage a lie
but okay
can we please just invade north korea and make it a US state. Hell I'm sure Canada would be cool if we made it their 11th province.
[QUOTE=Riller;39704223] [B]And the US is still butthurt over 9/11.[/B][/QUOTE]
Really unnecessary comment. So fuck yourself.
[QUOTE=Riller;39704898]Then you're arguing semantics. Is ten thousand deaths in five minutes not destruction?[/QUOTE]
It's not the destruction of the entire city, no.
It's not acceptable, but as far as I can tell he's never said that it was.
I think the entirety of what you're arguing is based off the assumption that he thinks that North Korea should be attacked regardless of the consequences for Seoul, and I don't think that's the case.
What people dont get it the nuke could reach South Korea.
Heres the catch
There are A LOT of US troops stationed in South Korea. Along with other innocents and Samsung.
you dont want the american troops and your smartphone gone now, do you?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.