Posted on 07/31/2017 10:14:54 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Forget that North Korea would be committing strategic and political suicide with a full-scale bombardment of Seoul. If a storm of artillery rounds fell on Seoul, would the city really disintegrate?
"Artillery is not that lethal," says Anthony Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and is a national security analyst for ABC News. "It takes a long time for it to produce the densities of fire to go beyond terrorism and harassment." Even in a worst-case scenario, where both U.S. and South Korean forces are somehow paralyzed or otherwise engaged, and North Korea fires its 170mm artillery batteries and 240mm rocket launchers with total impunity, the grim reality wouldn't live up to the hype. Buildings would be perforated, fires would inevitably rage and an unknown number of people would die. Seoul would be under siege—but it wouldn't be flattened, destroyed or leveled.
If this sounds like squabbling over semantics, it is. But semantics and language matter. The casual, and largely unsupported references to Seoul's potential flattening punctuates the notion that Kim Jong Il is holding a city hostage. It recasts a complex strategic vulnerability as a cartoon: an entire city facing a perpetual firing squad. It also ignores physical laws, and the realities of modern warfare.
Barring the use of nuclear weapons or large-scale bombing runs, destroying a city requires an extended campaign of shelling and demolition, the likes of which the world hasn't seen since WWII. When the Chechen capital of Grozny was all-but-destroyed by Russian forces in 1999, it was the result of months of artillery and missile bombardments, as well as air strikes. There's no doubt that North Korea's massive deployment of artillery, and potential deployment of roughly 300 ballistic missiles, could wreak havoc on Seoul and its population. What's clear, however, is that a sudden barrage of shells and missiles would only mark the beginning of a battle for the city, not an apocalyptic fait accomplit.
And as Cordesman points out, flattening, levelling or otherwise destroying a city is an obsolete tactic. The firestorms of the past century have been replaced with surgical, precision-guided strikes, which can disable a city's communications, cut off its power and water supply, and pave the way for a ground invasion. "That's the real world," Cordesman says. "Not Dresden." The accuracy of North Korea's roughly 300 ballistic missiles is either classified or simply unknown, but nearly all are believed to rely on "strap-on" guidance, cobbled-together targeting systems that can't compete with modern smart bombs.
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com
This article was published on Nov 24, 2010.
“Artillery is not that lethal,”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like someone who has never been on the receiving end.
I don’t know of any historical precedent of a concentrated artillery barrage of a city of 25 million either.
Or artillery shells with cluster munitions.
No, it would not level the city, ala nukes, but the carnage would be horrendous.
Artillery is responsible for 75 percent of all casualties and even more so in built up areas with the overabundance of secondary missiles.
Look at the limited shelling of a Korean town a few years ago. Rather devastating. The amount of artillary that could be applied to the capital is thousands of times more. Wonder if 2010 author would be as dismissing if he and his family we in range?
North Korea could probably make Seoul look like Mosel or Raqqa, but flatten it? Make it only marginally habitable, maybe, but this is not the same as aerial carpet bombing.
And the North Koreans would not even get any bombers into the air. Of course, with short-range missiles armed with some kind of HE loading, but it is unlikely that the North Koreans could develop that size of nuclear warheads, small enough for a short-range missile.
Yeah my first thought. In Nam I faced mostly mortar fire and some artillery rockets. But watching 155s do their work is a whole different thing. Or 8in Naval Rifles. Yikes.
“Incoming fire always has the right-of-way”. (Old military proverb)
And the poor quality of construction will help.
IMO it’s wise to assume that NK could flatten Seoul as well as devastate Japan (if they chose to do so).I think it’s smarter to *over* estimate their capabilities than to *under* estimate them.
And how many of those shells would have a chemical payload?
So, let me get this straight. South Korea has had 70 years to provide for her defense against something that supposedly can flatten their main city in hours, yet, they do not have an adequate defense and rely on the US to provide for their defense??
Screw South Korea! They won’t defend themselves, so why is my tax money doing it??
“”Artillery is not that lethal,” says Anthony Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies”
Not that lethal? Words can only fail to express...
Sounds like he may have never been in a war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7QARslq74
Reminds me of the military expert in Braveheart. Out the window!!
“Not that lethal? Words can only fail to express..”
Kinda like saying “not that pregnant”....
“And as Cordesman points out, flattening, levelling or otherwise destroying a city is an obsolete tactic. The firestorms of the past century have been replaced with surgical, precision-guided strikes, which can disable a city’s communications, cut off its power and water supply, and pave the way for a ground invasion”
This glittering jewel of ignorance thinks that North Korea is a modern military and is somehow above using an “obsolete” tactic?
Astonishing in its ignorance. This is exactly the kind of guy who thought deft maneuvering and a lightning thrust into Baghdad meant we won the war.
I don’t think he’ll try to flatten it necessarily, I think he’ll try to seize it.
After the first 3-4 million die, will anyone care if it isn’t literally flattened?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.