How much damage would Seoul suffer in a war with North Korea?

gaijin

Banned
No one has mentioned the elephant in the room. After an attack starts IMH China will attack NK from north. They do not want US forces on their border and other then fight the US this is their last chance to avoid it.
Well according to Obergruppenfuhrer Smith in a recent Thread in chat the PLA would grind to a halt within a dozen of miles due to lack of trucks so the North Koreans should be safe there. :rolleyes:
 
And I think you are, just as you did in the China related threads, gravely underestimating those whom you dislike (the Cinese then and in this case the North Koreans).

Your view of North Korea is 10-20 years out of date, you are thinking of the 90’s.

No, KPA in the 1990s was actually on better footing since they weren't being starved. These days however:

http://www.voanews.com/a/defector-north-korea-regime-crumbling/3692918.html
http://theweek.com/articles/444795/north-koreas-military-falling-apart--kim-jong-uns-regime-next
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/672004/North-Korea-Kim-Jong-un-defectors
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/11/north-korea-army-life-defector-question

KPA is in pieces as the dozens of defectors constantly attest to.


In reality, North korea’s economy seems to be on a mild upward trend. Of course, I am not the type to simply expect to be taken on my word, I provide sources.

http://www.economist.com/news/finan...-numbers-scholars-try-new-forms-guesswork-how

There is obviously no denying that life for the average North korean is very very slowly improving. North Korea is still a massively uppressing dictatorship, but the popular image that it is starving to death is outdated. However, ask yourself this question, do you think that North korean civilians get higher standards of live while the army doesn't get extra funds??? This is North korea we are talking about.

First, the quote (I am unable to see the full article for now) specifies Pyongyang, which of course would get better support than your average KPA soldier. Second, you do realize that the markets sprung up because the national rationing system has virtually collapsed, forcing people to fend for themselves?

Sure, the people might be living slightly better compared to the abyss of the 1990s, but that particular time was pit black and not a standard we should be using.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I would say CalBear is severely overestimating the current KPA's ability to launch such an attack. We're talking about a "force" that spends almost all its time farming or stealing, buying watered down gasoline from the black market, and generally living in the gutters. If this was even ten years ago I would agree with the assessment, but now.....
Actually the DPRK is in considerably better shape than 10 years ago.

I would still agree with you regarding the capabilities of the North except for the fact that they have, despite their weak economy and near famine conditions, successfully developed ICBM, SLBM and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the KPA will fold like an envelope inside of a month from the start date of any conflict. Their logistical tail more or less ensures that. Problem is that it doesn't matter. They can destroy the ROK's economy in under a week, if Pyongyang went all in, they could do it in half a day. They do have around 1,000 missiles, they do have several hundred MLRS with the range to reach the outskirts of Seoul or beyond. Their home grown 300mm MLRS has the range to hit around half of the ROK, including the primary ROK defense headquarters and several of USFK's primary facilities.

There is no question that the DPRK would lose any war. The real question is if anyone involved would win.
 
What is the worst scenario possible in this case? Let's say the the DPRK regime just throw their hands in the air and decides to simple wipe out ROK from the map, and so launch a kamikaze offensive against them with the objective of causing as much damage humanly possible before being defeated, what could they achieve?
 
Actually the DPRK is in considerably better shape than 10 years ago.

I would still agree with you regarding the capabilities of the North except for the fact that they have, despite their weak economy and near famine conditions, successfully developed ICBM, SLBM and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the KPA will fold like an envelope inside of a month from the start date of any conflict. Their logistical tail more or less ensures that. Problem is that it doesn't matter. They can destroy the ROK's economy in under a week, if Pyongyang went all in, they could do it in half a day. They do have around 1,000 missiles, they do have several hundred MLRS with the range to reach the outskirts of Seoul or beyond. Their home grown 300mm MLRS has the range to hit around half of the ROK, including the primary ROK defense headquarters and several of USFK's primary facilities.

There is no question that the DPRK would lose any war. The real question is if anyone involved would win.

In other words, I was focusing on the conventional, while you were including the NBC weapons.

I would agree with you if NBC weapons are used, but I don't expect North Korea to be using those offensively first. That is the likely difference in opinions.
 

gaijin

Banned
In other words, I was focusing on the conventional, while you were including the NBC weapons.

I would agree with you if NBC weapons are used, but I don't expect North Korea to be using those offensively first. That is the likely difference in opinions.

Assuming the other guy is going to be incompetent, weak, unwilling to fight hard and going to not use his most powerful weapon to avoid losing a fight to the dead (because that is what this will be, make no mistake. Saddam Hussein and Khaddafi are dead, Kim Jung UN knows this) is not really the Smart play in my opinion.

Assuming the best case scenario is something that almost always bites you in the ass, be it Iraq, the response of the North Koreans or the state of the Chinese army.
 
Assuming the other guy is going to be incompetent, weak, unwilling to fight hard and going to not use his most powerful weapon to avoid losing a fight to the dead (because that is what this will be, make no mistake. Saddam Hussein and Khaddafi are dead, Kim Jung UN knows this) is not really the Smart play in my opinion.

Assuming the best case scenario is something that almost always bites you in the ass, be it Iraq, the response of the North Koreans or the state of the Chinese army.

It is not a question of best/worse scenario, it is a question of "realism". The only reason for North Korea to bring out the NBCs first would be if someone was going to invade it., be it ROK+US or PRC. Assuming the government is intact, it wouldn't go with an NBC first strike if it wasn't the one that was being threatened.

If we take out the above end game scenario, then there is no reason for North Korea to be using NBCs, thus leaving only the conventional, which are worn down to the bones. Because of this we've reach a delicate balance where any land/air military annoyance started by North Korea can be easily countered, leaving only submarines. And submarines aren't really useful for attacking Seoul or elsewhere, even with SLBMs (which would need NBC for them to be of any use).
 

gaijin

Banned
It is not a question of best/worse scenario, it is a question of "realism". The only reason for North Korea to bring out the NBCs first would be if someone was going to invade it., be it ROK+US or PRC. Assuming the government is intact, it wouldn't go with an NBC first strike if it wasn't the one that was being threatened.

If we take out the above end game scenario, then there is no reason for North Korea to be using NBCs, thus leaving only the conventional, which are worn down to the bones. Because of this we've reach a delicate balance where any land/air military annoyance started by North Korea can be easily countered, leaving only submarines. And submarines aren't really useful for attacking Seoul or elsewhere, even with SLBMs (which would need NBC for them to be of any use).


Indeed let’s talk about realism. Firstly, North Korea is massively outclassed in the conventional military sphere and they know it. So, if a conflict comes would it be realistic to expect them to limit themselves to conventional warfare only???


Not really. They would want to use non conventional weapons to even the balance if they think they can get away with it (and this is the key point).


It is a form of escalation dominance. If you have a means of escalating to a higher level of violence, you have in a way, a method of deterring your enemy from responding. You seem to think that the North Koreans would think of nonconventional weapons the same way you do: using them is the maximum level of escalation. In reality this is not the case


Firstly, intensity escalation, or in other words type of non-conventional weapons. Until they developed nukes, chemical and biological were the maximum escalation they North Koreans had. However, these days we have to assume they also have nuclear weapons. This in practice means they can use chemical and possibly biological weapaons and still have a way to escalate to the next level. This makes the use of chemicalweapons actually more likely. Instead of the ultimate weapon it becomes a weapon.


Secondly, geographical escalation or type of target. The North Koreans have the means to deliver WMD to a number of targets. Not just Seoul, but also the main population centers of Japan are in their targets. I for one have never considered the North Korean nukes to be intended for Seoul, they are much more likely to be used on Tokyo and Osaka. In the future, also US cities will be reachable. Once again, this means they can hit one target and still have a means of escalating by hitting more and diverse targets.


This leads us to an escalation scenario. Somehow war breaks out. The North Koreans know for a fact they will lose a conventional war, and history tells them that the West is not above invading and toppling leaders which leads to their death. They also kow that on average the West is casualty adverse. The temptation to hit them hard and hit them so hard they back off is there. The question is how do you get away with it?? Well you use conventional and a chemical bombardment on the DMZ and possibly Seoul. Logistical nightmare for the enemy. You hurt them and cause casualties. What is the end game??? You send a message via China to the Koreans and the US saying the following: “We just hit Seoul and we hit it hard. Before you do anything stupid, remember we can do the same to Pusan, Tokyo, Osaka and every US base within 500 kilometers. If you really push us, the nukes will start flying. Do you think we are bluffing??? Look what we did to Seoul. Are you feeling lucky?? Go ahead punk make my day.”
As the saying goes "your move".

Scarily enough, this offers a better chance of survival for Kim Jung Un and Co. than keeping things conventional.


How is that for a scary look at realism??
 
How is that for a scary look at realism??

In other words, we're on the same page that North Korea would only use the weapons if it was being threatened with invasion. Don't see any difference there.

And frankly, that's where everything falls apart. The OP scenario called for North attacking the South first, and unless there were any indications that ROK was going to invade (stuff of Battle Born), there isn't any reason for North to resort to its trump cards first.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What is the worst scenario possible in this case? Let's say the the DPRK regime just throw their hands in the air and decides to simple wipe out ROK from the map, and so launch a kamikaze offensive against them with the objective of causing as much damage humanly possible before being defeated, what could they achieve?
Max? No one can say for sure, open source doesn't give enough facts (unlike say the U.S. and Russian ICBM nuclear stockpiles, both of which are literally known to the launcher), but some reasonable speculation would include (this is based on the North having five launchable nuclear weapons, 3,000 tons of Vx and a similar inventory of mustard gas or Lewisite and the North going gfull out Zerg-rush):

Destroy Seoul, or at least make it uninhabitable.

This would take around 100 240mm/300mm MLRS rockets with a mix of Vx and Mustard gas combined with a conventional bombardment (the idea is go conventional artillery 1st, that forces people into shelters, many of those lack full NBC protection, followed almost immediately by the CW agents. Both Vx and Mustard are heavier than air, so the agents tend to gather most strongly in basements, dugouts, and bunkers. Vx is incredibly lethal, 10 mg on the skin is lethal in half of all cases, 30 mg is L50 if inhaled. It is also extremely persistent, unlike earlier agents like Sarin. Mustard has a much lower lethality rate, but that is part of its advantage in warfare. Individuals who are exposed require serious and ongoing medical care, often for the rest of their lives, blindness is not uncommon. This quickly overwhelms the medical triage system.

This could also be achieved with a salted nuclear weapon. That would render the region unsafe for up to 20 years.

Destroy or contaminate other major Korean cities. The North has 200+ missiles that can strike any point in South Korea from north of Pyongyang, including at least 100 that can manage it from the Yalu. There are roughly 20 million (40%) ROK citizens who live within 75 miles of the DMZ, they are all within range of artillery rockets like the FRoG-7

Destroy major industrial sites or contaminate them. The DPRK had 600+ SRBM that can carry conventional, chemical or nuclear warheads (although it is unlikely that the North would waste one of its few devices on a simple industrial target).

Now for the really "special" possibilities.

Strike metro Tokyo with one or more nuclear Weapons, other possible targets include Kyoto, Nagoya, and Osaka

Strike Kadena AFB, Okinawa. This is at the outer edge of known DPRK missile range, but it is also a glorious target for a lunatic who wants to see the world burn.

Top number casualties, if things broke perfectly wrong? Just from Pyongyang's actions? 15 million, maybe a few million more once short term radiation effect is taken into consideration, 90% civilians. More likely would be 3-5 million, 50% lethal. If the North managed to get a WMD onto Yokosura Joint Base or Kadena AFB, both of which have THOUSANDS of U.S. dependents on site, Katie bar the door. Under the previous Administration I would have expected a response that would scare the crap out of everyone who ever serious considered using a WMD against U.S. civilians.
 

gaijin

Banned
In other words, we're on the same page that North Korea would only use the weapons if it was being threatened with invasion. Don't see any difference there.


No we are not. If you actually read you will see that I mentioned escalation dominance. Since the North Koreans have nukes, chemicals are no longer their ultimate form of escalation. This means they can use chemicals and possibly biologicals and still be able to up the ante. This also means chemicals can be used in a scenario where they are not being threatened with invasion.


Secondly, for a dictator like Kim Jung Un losing a war might very well be a dead sentence since it weakes his position.Even if the stakes for North Korea as a state itself are not directly life or dead, for the head of state they might very well be. This once again alters the equation.


And frankly, that's where everything falls apart. The OP scenario called for North attacking the South first, and unless there were any indications that ROK was going to invade (stuff of Battle Born), there isn't any reason for North to resort to its trump cards first.


I agree that the North is not likely to invade the South. Generally speaking wars don’t happen like that outside of a Tom Clancy novel. What might happen though is that some small incident takes place and both sides escalate. This might also seem unlikely, but it is very easy to imagine a situation where for the politicians involved the risk of a small escalation (looking strong) seems preferable to the risks of backing down. At a certain point you get a situation that goes out of control. The scary thing here is that at each point of such an escalation cycle the parties involved are making short term rational decisions leading to a long term irrational outcome.
 
If full-fledged war breaks out, it's a question of what ignited it. If the Norks are on their own, expect SK to be torched. They are not stupid, but they're a mad dog - if it boils down to it, I have little doubt that Kim and Co will want to make the victory of whoever defeated them as pyrrhic as possible. Their methods have been calibrated towards providing maximum damage, rather than for fighting a lost battle.
 
If they hit Seoul with 1,000 170mm shell in the first five minutes, and 500 are duds, that means that 500 120 pound HE (or, more likely, a mix of HE, VX and Mustard) rounds have hit the city (this assumes 1/2 of the M-1978 and M-1989 are used and each gun fires its initial round and one reload before withdrawing under cover) and another 1,000 240mm and 300mm rockets (and this is a very conservative figure) the city will be largely destroyed by the combination of blast effect and fire, without even considering the high probability of CW (and the considerably lower, but still very worrisome, chance of BW). If Mustard gas was used, even in a single large volley, the city will have to be decontaminated before the residents could be allowed back (mustard likes to linger, undersides of fence rails, the underside of door knobs, car doors, benches, etc. can be contaminated for weeks, if not longer). Think about that for a second, how long would it take to decontaminate a blistering agent from every door knob, fence, bench, roof overhang and car from even a square mile of an urban area?

That sounds about right. I would say if it was kept to conventional weapons only deaths would be in the lowers tens of thousands range. The nice thing about megacities is that there are tons of sewers, storm drains, basements, parking garages, utility tunnels, etc. that are pretty artillery resistant that people can shelter in. Glass and steel cities are pretty hard to destroy as well; Beirut was the center of Lord knows how much conflict for Lord knows how many years and it wasn't exactly wiped off the map. Neither was Grozny. Both were badly damaged, but "sea of fire" is a little melodramatic. It isn't likely that it would stay conventional, though.

What would kill tons of people is if they mixed gas in with that. Sarin, VX, mustard, etc. are heavier than air, so they will seep down into shelters and kill people there. Using conventional explosives to drive people underground and then gas to poison them would push it into the hundreds of thousands of deaths probably. And then there are nukes and bugs.

I don't think decontamination would even be attempted, they would just have to wait for the agents to break down on their own.

The big thing is what to do with all those refugees. I honestly don't know if food, water, and shelter could be provided quickly enough to prevent large numbers of deaths from exposure.
 
Actually the DPRK is in considerably better shape than 10 years ago.

I would still agree with you regarding the capabilities of the North except for the fact that they have, despite their weak economy and near famine conditions, successfully developed ICBM, SLBM and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the KPA will fold like an envelope inside of a month from the start date of any conflict. Their logistical tail more or less ensures that. Problem is that it doesn't matter. They can destroy the ROK's economy in under a week, if Pyongyang went all in, they could do it in half a day. They do have around 1,000 missiles, they do have several hundred MLRS with the range to reach the outskirts of Seoul or beyond. Their home grown 300mm MLRS has the range to hit around half of the ROK, including the primary ROK defense headquarters and several of USFK's primary facilities.

There is no question that the DPRK would lose any war. The real question is if anyone involved would win.

Question: does this refer to the amount of time it would take for all North Korean troops to be repulsed from ROK territory or for the actual DPRK to disintegrate?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Question: does this refer to the amount of time it would take for all North Korean troops to be repulsed from ROK territory or for the actual DPRK to disintegrate?
For the KPA to run out of beans, bullets and gas, to use the term of art.

In under a month ROK and USFK air power and artillery will have destroyed the North's logistical train, destroyed or entombed inside their bunkers virtually all of the KPA's tube artillery (not that it will really make that much difference, since those tubes will have shot out their available munitions), wiped out the North's air force, and will be on a massive Scud Hunt looking for the remaining launchers. The troops will be out of food, probably out, or close to out of ammunition, and generall reduced to the sort of state that Iraq's army reached about four days into the Desert Storm ground offensive.

More or less a dead body looking for a place to fall over.
 

gaijin

Banned
That is of course assuming the North Koreans have not been paying attention over the past 20 years. Just because the armoured formations are defeated does not mean you have won the war. If they have they will have stored plenty of supplies and paramilitaries to kick off the mother of all insurgencies. No guarantees if that one will take off or fizzle out of course, but I for one am not sure the North hasn’t learned a few lessons watching the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Defeating the North militarily is not as simple as bombing the conventional military into the ground.As always there needs to be a follow up game and that is where the trouble lies.
 
No we are not. If you actually read you will see that I mentioned escalation dominance. Since the North Koreans have nukes, chemicals are no longer their ultimate form of escalation. This means they can use chemicals and possibly biologicals and still be able to up the ante. This also means chemicals can be used in a scenario where they are not being threatened with invasion.

There is no such thing as escalation dominance in this case. Any use of NBC means the end game, and both sides know this.
 
For the KPA to run out of beans, bullets and gas, to use the term of art.

In under a month ROK and USFK air power and artillery will have destroyed the North's logistical train, destroyed or entombed inside their bunkers virtually all of the KPA's tube artillery (not that it will really make that much difference, since those tubes will have shot out their available munitions), wiped out the North's air force, and will be on a massive Scud Hunt looking for the remaining launchers. The troops will be out of food, probably out, or close to out of ammunition, and generall reduced to the sort of state that Iraq's army reached about four days into the Desert Storm ground offensive.

More or less a dead body looking for a place to fall over.

I see. The tube artillery and NKPAAF being trashed I buy. But althought the U.S.'s aerial interdiction capabilities are amazing, is it possible for us to destroy their logistical train within their home turf? Scud hunting, as noted previously in this thread, has historically been a bust when we tried it in easier conditions than what the Korean Peninsula offers. There have also been instances, particularly in Kosovo, when an enemy has managed to effectively use camouflage and decoys to significantly hamper the effectiveness of a western air campaign.

What if the Chinese started aiding them to a significant degree (maybe with weapons, though primarily with tons of food, which they could maybe pass off as humanitarian aid). The goal of this would be to keep North Korea standing up and capable of causing significant casualties if the U.S. and ROK tried to invade so they can force a settlement and prevent the peninsula from being reunited.

I just have visions of Imperial Japan in my eyes. They kept fighting like wildcats even as they were starving to death and caused massive casualties. The defenders on Iwo Jima were malnourished before the campaign even started, had a little over half the recommended per doctrine supply of ammo, had completed a little less than two-thirds of their planned defenses (11 out of 17 planned miles had been dug), and were critically short of water and you know what they managed to do. The North Koreans are at least that brainwashed (in no small part because Imperial Japanese ideology was coopted by the Kims and played a huge role in creating the DPRK mindset).
 
Last edited:

gaijin

Banned
There is no such thing as escalation dominance in this case. Any use of NBC means the end game, and both sides know this.

Uhm no. You assume both sides know this and you assume both sides are playing along the same rules. This is not necessarily the case, and it wouldn't be the first time in history when in a war situation one side suddenly goes "why the hell did they do that? That makes no sense"


Also, to be correct the US and South Korea have conventional excalation dominance, in that they can counter every North Korean move with an equal or stronger move. When it comes to non conventional weapoans this is escalation dominance is much less pronounded. Yes, the US can destroy North Korea and in effect “win” a non conventional war, but the cost would be so horrendous that the North Koreans may consider this to be an unlikely option for the US to take.


Even then, you are still missing the key point here. If war for some reason would break out, Kim Jung Un knows he is playing for dear life. If the North gets occupied he ends up dead. If the North doesn’t get occupied but gets humiliated he will most likely get couped and once again killed. From his point of view once the shooting starts he is dead man walking unless…..


His calculation and assumptions are not the same as yours. You assume that using non conventional weapons is a dead sentence. From the North Korean elite point of view using non conventional weapons might be the only (slim) option to avoid a dead sentence. I provided you with a scenario how the North Koreans might apply non conventional weapons and try to get away with it. There is no guarantee this strategy would work for them. However, since the costs involved are so large we have to assume that the North is willing to go non conventional. The risks are simply too large.
 
What if the Chinese started aiding them to a significant degree (maybe with weapons, though primarily with tons of food, which they could maybe pass of as humanitarian aid). The goal of this would be to keep North Korea standing up and capable of causing significant casualties if the U.S. and ROK tried to invade so they can force a settlement and prevent the peninsula from being reunited.

See the answer below.

No one has mentioned the elephant in the room. After an attack starts IMH China will attack NK from north. They do not want US forces on their border and other then fight the US this is their last chance to avoid it.

Also, they dont want a million North Korean refugees flooding into China. So they will be very sure to make sure they stay in Korea and they are the US' responsibility.
 
Top