Well this is completely terrifying. It's crazy to me how calculated and strategic hypothetical war planning is. This paragraph:
"All things considered, analysts say, it could take American and South Korean forces three to four days to overwhelm North Korea’s artillery.
How much damage North Korea inflicts in that time depends in part on South Korea’s ability to get people to safety quickly. As more of the North’s guns are destroyed and people take cover, the casualty rate would fall with each hour."
Basically, if war broke out we would be able to destroy their artillery in a matter of days, but during those few days they would inflict major casualties on South Korea. The article estimates 60,000 fatalities in Seoul in the first day, 300,000 if it's a civilian attack. Even more if they use nukes.
Good God. This is great reporting of a massively terrifying situation. Worth the time it took to really read.
My takeaway (besides, generally, a lot of fear and shock) is that South Korea, particularly Seoul, is positioned for such utter destruction. That should have been obvious to me, but I guess I needed the article to better understand the magnitude/scope of that reality. Truly insane to read about how bloody this could get - quickly.
It's almost exactly 50 miles from Toms River to Cherry Hill so you could just picture North Korea on the other side of the river instead of Philly. I feel like Robert E. Kelly, the professor of political science at Pusan National University in South Korea put it best:
It's crazy to me how calculated and strategic hypothetical war planning is.
I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the article but when you consider what's at stake I guess it makes perfect sense to have so many people and organizations constantly studying the situation and drafting strategies. In reading through some of those scenarios though I couldn't imagine how a single round of artillery crossing the DMZ wouldn't immediately escalate into an all out war.
It's crazy to think about how close those 10 million people in Seoul are to all of this when we're just now getting to a point where the US might be able to be hit. It seems like the anti-missile defense technology is more focused on the longer range weapons but it sounded like Israel's "Iron Dome" might be an exception. I'm really curious how effective such a system might be in mitigating an attack on Seoul if they had one in place. Definitely going to have to check out that article that they linked to.
For what it's worth, I've thought about this article at least once per day since reading it a week ago.
Well this is completely terrifying. It's crazy to me how calculated and strategic hypothetical war planning is. This paragraph:
"All things considered, analysts say, it could take American and South Korean forces three to four days to overwhelm North Korea’s artillery. How much damage North Korea inflicts in that time depends in part on South Korea’s ability to get people to safety quickly. As more of the North’s guns are destroyed and people take cover, the casualty rate would fall with each hour."
Basically, if war broke out we would be able to destroy their artillery in a matter of days, but during those few days they would inflict major casualties on South Korea. The article estimates 60,000 fatalities in Seoul in the first day, 300,000 if it's a civilian attack. Even more if they use nukes.
Fuck me, war is horrifying.
Good God. This is great reporting of a massively terrifying situation. Worth the time it took to really read.
My takeaway (besides, generally, a lot of fear and shock) is that South Korea, particularly Seoul, is positioned for such utter destruction. That should have been obvious to me, but I guess I needed the article to better understand the magnitude/scope of that reality. Truly insane to read about how bloody this could get - quickly.
It's almost exactly 50 miles from Toms River to Cherry Hill so you could just picture North Korea on the other side of the river instead of Philly. I feel like Robert E. Kelly, the professor of political science at Pusan National University in South Korea put it best:
Shouldn't the entire world be focused on getting everyone out of Seoul as quickly as possible? That seems urgent.
NYC, too: only 53 miles from TR, as the crow flies. < http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html >
I'm looking for non-fiction from North Korean civilian writers. Think that exists? (Are you done with Orphan Master's Son?)
I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the article but when you consider what's at stake I guess it makes perfect sense to have so many people and organizations constantly studying the situation and drafting strategies. In reading through some of those scenarios though I couldn't imagine how a single round of artillery crossing the DMZ wouldn't immediately escalate into an all out war.
It's crazy to think about how close those 10 million people in Seoul are to all of this when we're just now getting to a point where the US might be able to be hit. It seems like the anti-missile defense technology is more focused on the longer range weapons but it sounded like Israel's "Iron Dome" might be an exception. I'm really curious how effective such a system might be in mitigating an attack on Seoul if they had one in place. Definitely going to have to check out that article that they linked to.