Please identify the artillery with such range.
Yeah, I know. Wikipedia. Probably made the whole thing up.
Not.
Yeah. I know. Wikipedia.
They probably made the whole thing up.
Not.
I had already identified the main artillery that could reach out and touch Seoul in my previous post, namely the Koksan self-propelled gun. The article you posted to me (stating that NK cannot flatten Seoul) actually identifies another ...the M-1985 rocket launcher, so those are two identified by your article that can reach Seoul.
What I like about FR is that people can debate an issue at will and using logic (unlike other places where things quickly deteriorate), so let me give a proper response. Also, apologies for my sarcasm in my initial post where I kept referencing 'lies.' That was unnecessary.
On the article you sent - they make salient points, but they miss the main point. It is not about 'flattening Seoul' (even Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'flattened' entirely), but rather the ability to wreak astounding damage in the time before sufficient action can be taken to silence the guns. The article - if I use its worst case scenario where they assume of the 13,000 guns only 700 can reach Seoul, where they assume only 2/3rds of those 700 will work, and where 25% of shells/rockets fired fail to detonate on impact. Even with that, the article you posted estimates that there will be 2,700 shells/rockets hitting Seoul per minute, resulting in 2,800 dead per minute.
That is almost the same number as people killed in 9/11 ...per minute, and that is using the article's scenario where things are not working well. First day losses according to that article is 64,000 dead. Note though that the article is looking at explosive shells. South Korean military planning expects that a number of incoming artillery will have poison gas, meaning that the number of dead could be much higher than that.
Anyway, while I agree that North Korea will not 'flatten' Seoul, it will definitely be able to do enough damage to make it a theoretical discussion.
What is more important though is the need for the world to do something. Every five years that pass reveal significant advancements by Pyongyang. Their offensive capabilities will continue to develop, and the number of lives they can 'touch' will continue to increase. Something will need to be done, otherwise what will happen is that in the future it will just be a more difficult situation to deal with. Eventually either the Kim dynasty will need to be removed, or there will be a reawakening of war with North Korea (a restart since it never really ended). It will happen ...the question is does it get done five years ago, now, or five years from now? Five years ago is impossible, so the decision is between now or the future.
It will be significantly more difficult in the future.