Does anyone else think the timing between these nuke tests and the newly appointed head of the UN to take Kofi Annan's place being South Korean may
have something to do with this?
Pie
Originally posted by iori_komei
I think we should threaten to nuke them, and if they don't obey the inter-
national community, we hit every military base with a few ICBM missiles
and set off a small tactical nuke off 10 miles from Pyonyang (in an unpop-
ulated area).
Originally posted by malganis
Couldn't we hit their artillery as well?
Because North Korea has a wide range of military means (including artillery, missiles, and ground-force operations) that can inflict significant damage on the South, pre-emptive strikes could not destroy all of North Korea's weapons before they could be used. Pre-emptive strikes against North Korean artillery and missiles would require South Korean cooperation and the deployment of additional U.S. aircraft, reconnaissance assets, and artillery. Counter-battery artillery fire and air strikes could be used to target North Korea artillery, but would be unable to prevent North Korea from doing considerable damage to Seoul.
Originally posted by 27jd
That link seemed to imply it would be very difficult, but not impossible. Of course there would have to be an acceptance of likely damage to Seoul, but I'm sure every measure would be taken to minimize it. I guess it just depends on how much the parties involved think it's worth to take Kim out....
One U.S. military estimate suggested that U.S. and South Korean military forces might suffer 300,000-500,000 casualties within the first 90 days of fighting, in addition to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties