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

[Blue3]

Could the US military destroy North Korean artillery pointed at Seoul (and other South Korean targets) with a pre-emptive strike?

The North Korean artillery blasting Seoul and other South Korean targets easily seems to be the biggest card that Un holds. Could we deal with it first in a pre-emptive strike?

[Cory]

No, probably not. At least not without extensively using tactical nuclear weapons.

[SoLongAtlas]

Yes, with precision strikes and special forces combined with RoK SOF. A lot of this stuff would be highly dug in and would take some doing but it could be done.

[Beet]

This artillery has not been fired in 60 years, and if left alone it won't for another 60. There's no reason to attack it now.

[Blue3]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/328780-us-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-moves-to-test-nuclear-weapon-report

US military ready now to attack North Korea

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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.

[Meclazine for Israel]

No one here knows.

That is the whole point of smart warfare.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't think there's a way to completely preempt the North Korean artilery 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.

[Hnv1]

I don't think there's a way to completely preempt the North Korean artilery 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.

I'm not sure what is your military credentials, but the DPRK could blitz forward with their shock armies in the old soviet fashion and cause quite a lot of havoc only to fall back to hard built defence lines on the DMZ. They don't have the materiel for a prolonged campaign but I'm not sure the ROK would be willing to sustain this amounts of damage to topple this failed state (only to pay higher prices for the restoration of proper society there).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

I'm not sure what is your military credentials, but the DPRK could blitz forward with their shock armies in the old soviet fashion and cause quite a lot of havoc only to fall back to hard built defence lines on the DMZ. They don't have the materiel for a prolonged campaign but I'm not sure the ROK would be willing to sustain this amounts of damage to topple this failed state (only to pay higher prices for the restoration of proper society there).

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.

[SoLongAtlas]

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.

I'm not sure what is your military credentials, but the DPRK could blitz forward with their shock armies in the old soviet fashion and cause quite a lot of havoc only to fall back to hard built defence lines on the DMZ. They don't have the materiel for a prolonged campaign but I'm not sure the ROK would be willing to sustain this amounts of damage to topple this failed state (only to pay higher prices for the restoration of proper society there).

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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

There's no Apple Genius solution for this one. Which is why North Korea has to be brought down as gently as possible.

[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?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

NK seems to have a diffrent approach, putting a lot more emphasis on guerrilla/asymmetric warfare. And Kim really doesn't have anything to lose if it comes to this.

[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?

[I Won - Get Over It]

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

VERY likely. But is it worth the risk of failing? Even if there is 99,99% probability that US will succeed, there is still 0,01% they US won't and Seoul with population of 10 millions people (25 with suburbs) might be demolished. 

Even if the the risk of the failure is negligible, the result of the failure is not; in fact it is devastating.

[Frodo]

All this hand-wringing will be for naught if the North Koreans are stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike of their own, like they did the first time around in 1950.   

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

All this hand-wringing will be for naught if the North Koreans are stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive strike of their own, like they did the first time around in 1950.   

They aren't.