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

Even then, you are still missing the key point here.

That the scenario here is North Korea striking first? That's the whole issue: You're trying to somehow generalize a specific scenario. If things had come to the point North Korea has no choice but to go NBC from the start, then already the endgame is on. No South government is going to let a North that used NBC alive, since it invalidates the entire existence of the nation.
 

gaijin

Banned
That the scenario here is North Korea striking first? That's the whole issue: You're trying to somehow generalize a specific scenario. If things had come to the point North Korea has no choice but to go NBC from the start, then already the endgame is on. No South government is going to let a North that used NBC alive, since it invalidates the entire existence of the nation.

No that is not what I am saying. Not at all. What I said was:

From post 28
Somehow war breaks out.

From post 31
I agree that the North is not likely to invade the South.

From post 39
If war for some reason would break out

Notice how I very clearly avoid mentioning my scenario involves the North invading the South???

Guess why I didn't mention that? :rolleyes:

Read posts 28, 39 and 31 again, I explained my point quit clearly I think, but if you have things you dont understand I don't mind elaborating.

Nice attempt at a strawman though.
 

gaijin

Banned
Try reading the OP. I don't care for the "somehow war breaks out" expansion you've been trying, which was why I was dismissing NBC use in the first place.

Let me spell it out slowly for you then.

Once again see my quote from post 31

I agree that the North is not likely to invade the South.

On the inlukelihood of a Northern attack at least we agree.

However your assumption was that in the event of an attack the North would limit itself to conventional weapons as in your comment in post 25

I don't expect North Korea to be using those offensively first.


However, my whole point was that once war breaks out, there is a logical reason for the North Koreans to use non conventional weapons (see posts 28.31 and 39 for details). The logic behind this holds true regardless of how said war starts.

If a war starts it's do or die time for the North Korean regime and that means that they have little insentive to limit themselves to a conventional war, which they already know they are going to lose.
 
I think we're over-estimating the North Korean nuclear programme here. We know they can set off a low kiloton nuke, but there's a big difference between a nuclear explosion and a nuclear weapon. Namely size. The NK might not have the capacity yet to mate it to a warhead for a missile, which means its going to have to be air dropped, and then its basically useless as the NKPAAF is in such a poor condition its laughable and I doubt any bomber would reach its target.
 
However your assumption was that in the event of an attack the North would limit itself to conventional weapons

However, my whole point was that once war breaks out

I do not necessarily believe North attacking first would be for an all out war. I was thinking of a bigger version of the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong, thus the conventional focus.
 

gaijin

Banned
Try reading the OP. I don't care for the "somehow war breaks out" expansion you've been trying, which was why I was dismissing NBC use in the first place.


If North Korea attacked South Korea how much damage (casualties/property) would Seoul and the rest of South Korea suffer before the North Korean military is defeated by the US/SK?


I do not necessarily believe North attacking first would be for an all out war. I was thinking of a bigger version of the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong, thus the conventional focus.


Could you try to be more consistent please. Now it looks like that when it suits your argument you want to stick to the OP, but when it doesn’t suit you, you want to create your own scenario.

I agree that in case of a local bombartment the NBC closet remains closed. If the North is actually bombing Seoul (as in the OP) things have progressed to full scale war already and then the calculus changes.
 
Could you try to be more consistent please. Now it looks like that when it suits your argument you want to stick to the OP, but when it doesn’t suit you, you want to create your own scenario.

Let's do it step by step for clarity's sake

1. If North attacked out of the blue, it is highly unlikely North would be aiming for the end game and thus stick to conventional weapons in a terror bombardment.
2. If NBCs are to be used for first strike, it would require a significant amount of preparations that ROK+US would be able to track and figure out, which throws off the entire calculation.
3. In the highly unlikely scenario where North manages to get off as much of its NBC in a first strike despite all the factors against it, all bets are off and total war is on. At this point we don't know how bloody this will be, since how PRC acts would change the calculus.


I agree that in case of a local bombartment the NBC closet remains closed. If the North is actually bombing Seoul (as in the OP) things have progressed to full scale war already and then the calculus changes.
Just simply bombing Seoul with conventional weapons is still within the realm of escalation. Given how North was basically telling its people it had punished South even after being clobbered more during Yeonpyeong, as long as Pyongyang isn't directly attacked North will likely just blow its own trumpet after whatever units were used to attack South are vaporized.
 
I think people are underestimating how difficult it is to destroy a city the size of Seoul. It's a vast megalopolis of 20 million people in total in the metropolitan area. Even North Korea's large long-range artillery park would only cause mild damage on the whole.
 

gaijin

Banned
Let's do it step by step for clarity's sake


1. If North attacked out of the blue, it is highly unlikely North would be aiming for the end game and thus stick to conventional weapons in a terror bombardment.


A large scale attack out of the blue of the kind we are talking about (Seoul being hit) would reignite the Korean war. In this scenario there is no way the north koreans are going to score a convenional win. Even if they do much much much better than I think likely, completely taking the South Koreans and US by surprise and then mayb just maybe take Seoul. After that their logistics won’t support any further advance, especially once South Korean and US air support moves in. In this best case scenario, they have Seoul hostage, then what??? Simple, the North korean supply lines get pounded into the dust, troops assembled and the North Koreans get kicked out after a vicious fight. Their army defeated and humiliated and if they are lucky the US and South Koreans stop at the DMZ. This is the best case scenario for the North Koreans. Now, imagine this happens, how long do you think Kim Jong Un will stay alive before some general kills him?? I think maybe a few weeks.


If North korea attacks from the blue, their goal is to win and in order to have a chance of that they need to scare and shock the US and South Koreans in such a manner they decide it is not worth it. Non conventional weapons are essential for this.


2. If NBCs are to be used for first strike, it would require a significant amount of preparations that ROK+US would be able to track and figure out, which throws off the entire calculation.


Disagree. NBC do not take huge preparations. All that needs to be done is get the warheads/shells delivered and done. There is no way for the US to see if a truck driving to the DMZ is carrying a normal shell or a chemical shell. That is even assuming they need to transport them at all. It is not unlikely a lot of the chemical weapons are already dispersed in local depots, ready to go. A significant portion of the Northern military is foreward deplyed to the DMZ. They don’t need much preparation.


If you have any information how the US could find out these “significant preparations” feel free to explain.


.

3. In the highly unlikely scenario where North manages to get off as much of its NBC in a first strike despite all the factors against it, all bets are off and total war is on. At this point we don't know how bloody this will be, since how PRC acts would change the calculus.


If the North koreans decide on a first strike with chemical and biological weapons they will get off a lot of them, make no mistake. As Calbear explains in his post, they have the means of delivery, but the US and South Koreans do not have to means to stop them in the amount of time required. It is simple mathematics.


.

Just simply bombing Seoul with conventional weapons is still within the realm of escalation. Given how North was basically telling its people it had punished South even after being clobbered more during Yeonpyeong, as long as Pyongyang isn't directly attacked North will likely just blow its own trumpet after whatever units were used to attack South are vaporized.


Bombiong Seoul is a very different proposition than bombing some island on the border. If you want to downgrade this to some minor incident, you are right that it will be limited to conventional weapons. However, you in a previous post insited on focusing on the OP so let’s do that. The OP stated damage to Seoul which is not a minor incident, hence the calculus changes.
 
CBW wasn't something I'd considered in my initial reply, I was thinking pure conventional, but yeah you could radically up the numbers if their factored in. And for the final exclamation point, there's always the nukes...

On the issue of North Korea being underestimated... I can't help but be reminded of an old post of mine.

Pretty much this. While North Korea's actual statements are over the top, such as their threats to incinerate America, they have actually attacked South Korean and American forces several times in the past. In 2010 during a period of vociferous rhetoric they sunk a South Korean warship, and conducted a major artillery attack against a South Korean island. And those were just the most recent outrages, there have been many more. What people are forgetting is that when the North gets extremely bellicose, it often DOES follow words with actions and people die. And yet the overriding American narrative is that they're a harmless joke.

The fact is that North Korean actions are relentlessly downplayed, from pooh poohing their first nuclear test to minimizing actual acts of war. The overriding narrative is that they're just full of hot air, despite them often acting - lethally - on those statements. It's because America and South Korea do not want a war with them, so all casus belli are downplayed. Were Iran to offer the same justifications, they would now be being bombed - because the US is one good excuse away from going in after Iran's nuclear program. Their vastly more modest actions have been blown up to "very serious" proportions by US officials.

It gives you a clue as to who we want to fight and who we don't.
 
Last edited:
SNIPPED

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.

SNIPPED

China can't give any aid to NK. When NK attacks the armistice is over and the UN Mandate is still in effect. China goes not want war or the bad publicity they would get. Allies are Allies so China will act very carefully in regards to helping NK.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think people are underestimating how difficult it is to destroy a city the size of Seoul. It's a vast megalopolis of 20 million people in total in the metropolitan area. Even North Korea's large long-range artillery park would only cause mild damage on the whole.
It depends, in large part, on how you are defining "destroyed".

It is quite difficult to recreate 1951 Seoul (or 1943 Stalingrad). It is not so difficult to render the entire region uninhabitable. We have already discussed CW and actual nuclear weapons. There are, however, two other, very cost effective, methods that can be used, namely bio-weapons and "dirty" bombs.

Pyongyang has demonstrated a truly remarkable disdain for international norms, far beyond even the late and unlamented USSR on its worst day. The USSR had (and Russia, as has been documented, continued, although current status is not open source available) a large scale, thriving bio-weapons program long after the 1972 Treaty, as did Iraq. Iraq is particularly worrisome as an example since Saddam's government was vastly less efficient in the area of weapon research than the DPRK. It would actually be far MORE surprising to learn that the North does NOT have a BW program than to find it does. A relatively low number of Anthrax laden shells or warheads could render significant areas of the Seoul metroplex a no-go zone for years, if not decades.There are a number of other agents that could be produced by any competent lab (and the DPRK has demonstrated that it can gather together some very competent people), and be done with mimimal chance of accidental discovery.

A "dirty bomb" would generally not be seen as a serious threat, compared even to conventional HE/Frag shells. The difference when considering the DPRK is that there is no question that the North can and has produced considerable amounts of Plutonium and is readily capable of producing Polonium-210 in quantity. Not only would the release of any appreciable amount of plutonium oxide or Po-210 dust into a region present an actual threat it would also result in the evacuation of an area larger than that which had actually been exposed. Residents of the region, or abutting regions would also be reluctant to return, even after the ROK government indicated that it was safe. Loss of real estate value alone would likely reach 10 figures.

There are very few nation-states that would consider use of bio-weapons or heavily radioactive dirty bombs close to their border (or on the same continent), Pyongyang's leadership is one of the exceptions.
 
@CalBear in your Endless Summer TL you had over 4 MILLION South Koreans getting exposed to chemical weapons fired by North Korea, with hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Would this large a number of casualties be due to the number of warheads and shells fired or the highly dense South Korean population?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
@CalBear in your Endless Summer TL you had over 4 MILLION South Koreans getting exposed to chemical weapons fired by North Korea, with hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Would this large a number of casualties be due to the number of warheads and shells fired or the highly dense South Korean population?
Ah... My first magnum opus here, when the Board was a much cozier place. :D

The figure was a combination of both factors. at the time 8.5 million people lived in Seoul (inside the border of the "Special City" boundaries), with 28 million more in the surrounding region all within range of FroG-7 artillery. The area is a massive metroplex, as such it is a perfect target for bio-weapons (as I briefly discussed up-thread). I actually went conservative on the number of exposures, although the fatalities are close to what I would still speculate (it is important at this point that I state that I have no sort of special access to intel, everything I speculate about is based on Open Source information, other's mileage may vary).
 
I'm surprised you could achieve a wide enough CW dispersal to affect millions of people solely with missiles/artillery shells.

How would North Korea actually deploy a dirty bomb?

Would they just cover normal conventional explosives in radioactive material and launch it with artillery/aircraft?
 
Last edited:
If USA leadership learn that north korea want to start a war (like in the situation where the regime is collapsing and they want a fast win to regain power and force the domination on the peninsula with the fear of nuke retaliation on japan) will they able to annihilate north korea abilities to lunch nuclear and chemical weapons and force them to submission? Is the preemptive nulcear strike even an option considering this new "interesting" Usa's leaderships?
 

gaijin

Banned
Short answer: no. The North ahs too many launchers available to make it not feasable to take out enough of them to prevent the mayhem. Even if you drop nukes there will be enough surviving launchers to create havoc.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If USA leadership learn that north korea want to start a war (like in the situation where the regime is collapsing and they want a fast win to regain power and force the domination on the peninsula with the fear of nuke retaliation on japan) will they able to annihilate north korea abilities to lunch nuclear and chemical weapons and force them to submission? Is the preemptive nulcear strike even an option considering this new "interesting" Usa's leaderships?
There is a difference between "able" and "would", one that is critical in this scenario.

The U.S. is "able" to render North Korea an uninhabitable wasteland where the dominant form of life would be cockroaches for half a century. This would require jacketing/salting around 150 Warheads with Cobalt-60. The blow back from that would include massive radiation contamination of the PRC, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and, depending on the wind, parts of Western Alaska, almost certainly followed in a matter of days by WW III. This is where the "would" part of the conversation comes into play.

The U.S. would not be able to destroy all the mobile missile launchers the DPRK operates without committing genocide at a level that would give the Third Reich pause.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm surprised you could achieve a wide enough CW dispersal to affect millions of people solely with missiles/artillery shells.

How would North Korea actually deploy a dirty bomb?

Would they just cover normal conventional explosives in radioactive material and launch it with artillery/aircraft?
CW agents are actually terrific for covering large areas. They readily spread over a wide area with a small bursting charge. The shells can be VT fused ensuring that the ideal dispersal altitude is reached. The agents are heavier than air and will naturally seek out shelters. Vx is shockingly lethal (10 mg, or 0.00035 oz of agent is lethal on bare skin), is surprisingly persistent, forming small oily droplets on the underside of pretty much anything, and will redistribute into smaller, and still lethal droplets of disturbed or if improperly decontaminated, and can be transferred by clothing, skin, boots, or more or less any surface. Mustard gas is far less lethal, but shares many of the same characteristics regarding transmission. Imagine trying to get ALL the contaminated clothing off a victim before they enter an emergency room, before the staff even realizes what the patient has been exposed to, or getting every person to strip and walk through a decontamination shower before entering a shelter while shells are falling (very few hasty shelters will even have proper air filtration, much less complete CW decon gear). One contaminated person walks into a shelter with 100 other people and, at best, half of them are going to be exposed, more likely 3/4 or more.

Chemical weapons are LOUSY battlefield choices, but against a city or any other area denial target they are the cat's ass.

Dirty bombs would likely be via missile warheads. Again the bursting charge can ensure maximum coverage, the nature of the contamination ensures that any movement through the contaminated area results in increased area of exposure.
 
Top