this seems like a pretty poor analysis, ( i have read just about every link from your link). So much of it is just speculation.
1st point . Seoul is in a vally the NK artillery is in a very elevated position ( the main evaluation
http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/ doesn't performs any range calculations have no scale on their maps either......the only listed range is MLRS of 35km, which MLRS?)
2nd point. NK artillery is fortified in mountains, they would need to be a very large number of sorties to take them all out. What does the US have near by that can loiter for long periods of time?
3rd point. NK have way more then "conventional Artillery", Phosphorus nerve agents . chem etc weapons
4th point, The assumption that the north would try and protect its boarder with artillery, look at my countries defense plan ( Australia).
5th point, The last time we saw the NK mobile artillery in action in the iran-iraq war it was the longest range artillery piece in the world do we assume they haven't increased capability in over 30 years?
6th point , they assume NK will move its artillery cuz invasion
the links that you link links to explicitly remove form their analysis non conventional attacks.
Nuclear is unlikely any time soon as its along way from bomb in the ground to weaponizing it on a missile or artillery piece but they have plenty of other options, only a few assumption have to be wrong for the NK can't hurt Seoul she'll be right mate to go horribly wrong.
I basically agree with you. There are many potential errors/misassumptions in the link I posted. Some of which could lead to a much higher casualty rate than originally hoped for.
But I would hope that the gist of it turns out to be correct and the vast bulk of the population of Seoul, South Korea and their armies can protect themselves, in a timely manner. Having underground protection facilities, is a good thing, in circumstances like that.
Although I agree that they left out, possible other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and nuclear. I agree with them for doing that, since it is mostly not known (publicly), what such capabilities are, that North Korea really has, and which could be used against South Korea.
Given that South Korea has modern weapon systems, such as advanced military jets, the USA on its side and North Korea is relatively poor (one of the poorest countries in the world), has relatively poor technology and may be, being badly run by a leader/people who would normally be found in mental asylums. (I'm not 100% sure of this, but judging by appearances).
I.e. It could well be a lot more bluff, than real capability, when North Korea makes such bold claims. E.g. Hydrogen Bombs.
If they have got now, or sooner or later, have got 10 or more, somewhat powerful nuclear bombs, which they find a method of delivering to South Korea (or elsewhere). We could easily see millions of people, being adversely affected.
I guess the $64,000,000 question, in that case would be, is the North Korean Leader, as mad as the press seems to be making out, and he sounds, from the way he acts, and what he says ?
If yes, then we could see some kind of disaster, sooner or later.
The other $64,000,000 question is,
How will China react to the unfolding situation ?
If China insists on defending a crazy/bad North Korea, that has just done terrible things, how will the US and the rest of the world react ?
Unlike North Korea, who ultimately have very limited
real military power. An angry China, is not something to be ignored. Russia could also potentially join in, if things could go bad, in that way. Maybe other countries as well, e.g. Turkey.
So we could end up with another possible World War 3 situation.
Facebook
Twitter