Eh, it's a bit more complicated than that. For one thing, North Korea may be just crazy enough to actually "try him." For another thing, odds are they wouldn't go after the US yet, as it's not within their capabilities, but they can still do massive damage to South Korea (Seoul is only something like 20 miles from the border with the North) and perhaps Japan, and frankly, that's where the real issues lie. We're too far away to hurt us directly, but some of our most important allies are definitely within their striking distance.
North Korea doesn't need nukes to achieve a localize version of MAD. They have enough artillery tubes buried in the mountains to turn Seoul into a quarry in a few hours, and if open war is declared there is no way for South Korean and American forces to take them out before they do it. As a result, the cost of war with North Korea would be too high before the first soldier crosses the border either way.
North Korea doesn't need nukes to achieve a localize version of MAD. They have enough artillery tubes buried in the mountains to turn Seoul into a quarry in a few hours, and if open war is declared there is no way for South Korean and American forces to take them out before they do it. As a result, the cost of war with North Korea would be too high before the first soldier crosses the border either way.
It will be a high-cost suicide. Yeah, they have plenty of arty pointing at south Korea - most of it won't reach Seoul - and they'd have hours of open war before they get steamrolled. I've no doubt the US knows where a hell of a lot of their gear is, and plans for just such an occasion.
North Korea doesn't need nukes to achieve a localize version of MAD. They have enough artillery tubes buried in the mountains to turn Seoul into a quarry in a few hours, and if open war is declared there is no way for South Korean and American forces to take them out before they do it. As a result, the cost of war with North Korea would be too high before the first soldier crosses the border either way.
It will be a high-cost suicide. Yeah, they have plenty of arty pointing at south Korea - most of it won't reach Seoul - and they'd have hours of open war before they get steamrolled. I've no doubt the US knows where a hell of a lot of their gear is, and plans for just such an occasion.
Oh, of course they have no chance of winning whatsoever. The artillery will die in minutes and hours and the country overrun in days and weeks.
The problem is that those emplacements are hardened enough and numerous enough that you simply can't take them all out before they raze Seoul to the ground. In practical terms the effect will be little different from if they dropped a nuke on the place. Essentially, North Korea holds both it's own citizens, and the citizens of Seoul, hostage.
I have no doubt the ROK has a plan to evacuate Seoul in the event of a war. Knowing your enemy has artillery pointed at your city and not having a plan is the worst sign of failed leadership.
Also, there's almost certainly a SLBM sub in the waters off of the Korean peninsula. Pyongyang would be a glass parking lot within an hour of an attack.
I have no doubt the ROK has a plan to evacuate Seoul in the event of a war. Knowing your enemy has artillery pointed at your city and not having a plan is the worst sign of failed leadership.
I don't think it's that simple - evacuating even a significant part of the populace of Seoul in the minutes to hours it would take before the shelling started would be more or less logistically impossible.
The really odd thing about it is that the law was proposed by a woman.
There are plenty of women who think abortion is wrong and are more than willing to use the government to enforce their opinion. It's not strictly an old white republican opinion.
The problem is that those emplacements are hardened enough and numerous enough that you simply can't take them all out before they raze Seoul to the ground.
Oh horseshit. You're telling me that the 17-ish Artillery guns are going to Raze Seoul to the ground within hours, before enough of them could be found and destroyed? Not a fucking chance if they had triple that.
First, "Hard to find" only applies until the first shot is fired. Counter-battery radar is actually a thing, and it's incredibly sensitive and accurate - it'll locate most emplacements to within a meter. Even at it's worst, it's accurate enough to target airstrikes and counter-battery fire. And it's a known fact that South Korea not only has it, but it's stationed all along the border.
Second, artillery fire isn't really that lethal. The radius of each shell's explosion isn't that big, isn't enormously powerful, and fire density is extremely low, and even with massed artillery fire, it takes a signifigant amount of time to build up the density of fire to do any serious damage. You'd hole buildings, set some fires, kill a bunch of people, but if you think - like you said, so I assume you do - that in practical terms it would be identical to nuking the place, then you simply don't know what you're talking about. They could shell Seoul for weeks with everything they own that has the range, and still not raze the place.
Grozny was razed by the Russians. They were better equipped, better armed, better positioned, and they were using all sorts of missile strikes, artillery, and airstrikes. Still took them months of bombardment.
Sure, they could put the city to siege. Kill a lot of people, smash the place up a bit. But Raze it? Without a nuke, chances are effectively zero.
The really odd thing about it is that the law was proposed by a woman.
There are plenty of women who think abortion is wrong and are more than willing to use the government to enforce their opinion. It's not strictly an old white republican opinion.
Exactly, but everyone always seems to blame "old, white, male Republicans" for anti-abortion laws. I was just sorta calling that out here.
Sure, they could put the city to siege. Kill a lot of people, smash the place up a bit. But Raze it? Without a nuke, chances are effectively zero.
Indeed. WW2 demonstrated that pretty much the only way to raze a city without nukes is months and months of conventional bombardment -- and even that isn't a guarantee.
Now, if DPRK actually had a working nuke and a delivery system that could be used to launch it at Seoul, then I'd start to be worried. From what I recall, the nuke tests they had so far were somewhat successful, but had pretty minuscule yields much smaller than Trinity (AKA the New Mexico test site), Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
>Linking to HuffPo >Extremist bill in Democrat controlled congress >caring
Er, it's only a state-level bill. Congress has nothing to do with it.
I know. I did my research. The Arizona congress is democrat controlled.
Er, you mean New Mexico, right? Also, it's the New Mexico state legislature, not Congress as Congress is the national legislative body. However, I'm being pedantic here...
>Linking to HuffPo >Extremist bill in Democrat controlled congress >caring
Er, it's only a state-level bill. Congress has nothing to do with it.
I know. I did my research. The Arizona congress is democrat controlled.
Er, you mean New Mexico, right? Also, it's the New Mexico state legislature, not Congress as Congress is the national legislative body. However, I'm being pedantic here...
Regardless, a woman's body is NOT a fucking crime scene.
Comments
The problem is that those emplacements are hardened enough and numerous enough that you simply can't take them all out before they raze Seoul to the ground. In practical terms the effect will be little different from if they dropped a nuke on the place. Essentially, North Korea holds both it's own citizens, and the citizens of Seoul, hostage.
First, "Hard to find" only applies until the first shot is fired. Counter-battery radar is actually a thing, and it's incredibly sensitive and accurate - it'll locate most emplacements to within a meter. Even at it's worst, it's accurate enough to target airstrikes and counter-battery fire. And it's a known fact that South Korea not only has it, but it's stationed all along the border.
Second, artillery fire isn't really that lethal. The radius of each shell's explosion isn't that big, isn't enormously powerful, and fire density is extremely low, and even with massed artillery fire, it takes a signifigant amount of time to build up the density of fire to do any serious damage. You'd hole buildings, set some fires, kill a bunch of people, but if you think - like you said, so I assume you do - that in practical terms it would be identical to nuking the place, then you simply don't know what you're talking about. They could shell Seoul for weeks with everything they own that has the range, and still not raze the place.
Grozny was razed by the Russians. They were better equipped, better armed, better positioned, and they were using all sorts of missile strikes, artillery, and airstrikes. Still took them months of bombardment.
Sure, they could put the city to siege. Kill a lot of people, smash the place up a bit. But Raze it? Without a nuke, chances are effectively zero.
Now, if DPRK actually had a working nuke and a delivery system that could be used to launch it at Seoul, then I'd start to be worried. From what I recall, the nuke tests they had so far were somewhat successful, but had pretty minuscule yields much smaller than Trinity (AKA the New Mexico test site), Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
>Extremist bill in Democrat controlled congress
>caring
Obviously, the fetus is evidence of CONSENT. Because if it was rape, the vagina would have magically repelled the sperm.