Could US destroy NKorean artillery pointed at Seoul with a pre-emptive strike?

[dead0man]

Obviously we couldn't hope to destroy it all preemptively. That said, I think the counterbattery capabilities we and the ROK have should be sufficient to quickly silence the KPA artillery if the North overreacts to what Trump does.

indeed

Artillery is fairly simple as weapons go, but they still need maintenance, ammo, parts and men trained in how to use them to get the proper ...ahem...a(e)ffect from them.  Seoul is going to get pounded, probably not as bad as they would have in decades past as we get better at stopping it and their gear gets older and more prone to failure.  But still, pounded.  I know Israel and S.Koreans have been in talks in the past concerning the Iron Dome, but as far as I can tell (googling), it hasn't happened yet.  That would certainly help, and I can't imagine we'd start a war on our time table that doesn't include SOMETHING to limit the NORKS artillery threat.

[dead0man]

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.

Some of you aren't old enough to remember, but the same sh**t was said about Iraq in 1990.  They had the "4th largest military in the world", would use chemical weapons, have nothing to lose, would be the bloodiest since Vietnam, could take months.  Sure, propaganda....it's always good to make your weak opponent look as strong as possible right before you destroy him, but couldn't that also be the case here?

[dead0man]

Good point, dead0man, but wasn't Iraqi strategy in 1991 pretty stupid one? It almost seems like they thought of this like another war with Iran, only with stronger foe. Blah blah, we have a lot of divisions, blah, the sheer amount blah, a lot of equipment, blah. Also, terrible command structure. Still, it could've been more difficult, but the U.S. had much smarter commanders and tacticians.

Saddam bought the spiel the Russian arms dealers sold him.  He really got second rate of equipment that was already second rate to what the west had, and a lot of it was old.  And Arabs don't know how to do war against non-Arabs.  And the flat land of Iraq compared well to the flat land of Germany and your country that the US miltary was designed for.  We still had some environmental issues that we weren't prepared for, but we're damn good at adapting in the field.  It's one of the most important thing young officers our taught.  We will still have much smarter commanders.  They will still have communications issues, both those inherent to authoritarian govts and the fact that it's all getting blown up or scrambled or whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While it's impossible to do great against dedicated guerrilla warfare, we do have 30 odd years worth of excellent training in it.  And I don't know who would be more "dedicated" to it, people doing it for their stupid god or people doing it for the stupid fat guy that thinks he's a god....I'd assume the people doing it for their stupid god would be more dedicated, but I suppose we won't know the answer to that until it actually happens.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Nork's military started waving white flags at CNN crews 12 hours into it just like the Iraqi Army did...would you?