I don't think there's a way to completely preempt the North Korean artillery from launching at Seoul. The question is how effective such a strike would be. Either way, I can't see Seoul getting obliterated as it would happen twenty years ago.
North Korean military poses a serious challenges in two areas: nuclear weapons and possible prolonged guerilla warfare. Conventional forces alone would be dealt with quickly.
Good point. I remember reading somewhere that when Clinton considered military action against NK in 1994, he was eventually persuaded that, while the U.S. and South Korean forces would be victorious, it would come with high cost because of factors you've named.
We all agree NK can do a lot of damage with sheer number of their committed forces. I'm not qualified enough to talk about artillery effect on Seoul.
It would be casualties in the low 100s to mid 200,000s depending on DPRK targeting, evacuation. Seoul is a city of millions about 30 miles from the DMZ. Of course, all of this is relative, depending on amount used but the key with arty is that it doesn't need to be pinpoint accurate to inflict damage in an urban environment. Yes and no on shock army southward push. That could be derailed quickly but I would think, unfortunately, Kim would authorize vast DPRK SOF use as well as nuclear and chemical counter offensives. This war, if it happened, would be the bloodiest since Vietnam and the amount of time (quick ops to KIA) the deadliest short operation since WW2. It's not something for a quick and nice turnaround. Millenials need to get their heads around that and the WH needs to understand how quickly it can turn on a dime.
