I heard that if North Korea is ever attacked, its conventional artillery will flatten Seoul within hours. And there's nothing Seoul or Washington can do to prevent that.
Tactical nukes are low yield nuclear weapons suitable for totally destroying small areas, they can be carried by cruise missiles so delivered with great accuracy, 6 or 7 of them would pretty much wipe out NK conventional forces.
This i believe has always been the plan if the North was stupid enough to invade or shell Seoul, pretty much the only way to get an instant, fast and low risk result.
Seoul is some 30KM from the DMZ?
Seems that NK's only defence against any invasion would be those from the South.
So unless SK and the US know where all those artilleries are, and can somehow managed to take them all out within minutes of the initial strike
Yes it is, well the outskirts. I've been to the DMZ, from the north side.It's flat and open. Not the best place to put all your eggs, so they don't. The North Koreans aren't dumb.
They have enough to slow a ground invasion and cause a fair bit of damage to an invading ground force, but that's not the same as flattening Seoul. Nor does the bulk of their artillery have the distance to reach Seoul, as I said. I'll try and dig up some info later.
You can't flatten a city of 20m people with 170mm shells, dude. Well you can, if you've got a few years. You can put holes in buildings and start fires, but as soon as you start firing you reveal all your hidden positions will be picked up by radar and have fire and brimstone reigned down them. All your known artillery batteries will have long been blown away by SK and the US.
All this is also predicated on their ancient equipment still working.
Just heard on tv that the South Korean President had rejected the installation of an anti ICBM system. Don't know why, he may be regretting that now.
You can't flatten a city of 20m people with 170mm shells, dude. .
Not with conventional High explosive rounds, But with nuclear shells you could, artillery are capable of delivering many types of rounds, including atomic weapons.
Well, I never knew that. I thought atomic bombs were much larger eg Fat Boy, Little Man.
Tactical nuclear weapons which are designed and intended for use on selected military targets have evolved considerably. For example the early atomic cannons for example would be replaced by highly accurate nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
The Lowy Institute wrote an analysis on this development. It was published in September 2016 before Donald Trump became President. Be interesting to see what policy strategists now see as the risk of international tensions escalating into a tactical nuclear war.
Tactical nuclear weapons in the modern nuclear era
In this Lowy Institute Analysis, Brendan Thomas-Noone argues that advances in technology are making tactical nuclear weapons more precise and potentially more usable. He argues that new arms control measures are needed to promote greater transparency about the development of these weapons.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/tactical-nuclear-weapons-modern-nuclear-era
____________________
Check out Davey Crockett. This was an early version of a battleground nuke. Never went into service Check out the video and guess why...
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-the-worlds-smallest-nuk-1684923814
That it is better to take the city whole than to destroy it;
Like most things, tech advances allow them to shrink in size.Well, I never knew that. I thought atomic bombs were much larger eg Fat Boy, Little Man.
That is one of the pros to chemical weapons, the idea you could shell an enemies position with low explosive rounds containing a nerve agent, killing them but leaving all infrastructure intact is very appealing. The temptation was so great and the possible damage so big pretty much all nations have agreed to not use them.
Like most things, tech advances allow them to shrink in size.
US nukes has the equivalent firepower of all explosives used during WW2, including the two nukes. Scary stuff.
.
It's a really good demonstration of how much energy is tied up in Mass, and what the formula E=mc2 really means in practice.
In the bombing of Hiroshima only about 15grams of mass was converted to energy, thats about a piece of uranium the about the size of a pea.
A 9mm pistol round (think of the tiny bullets used in the hand guns police carry around) weighs about 50% more than the uranium mass converted to energy in the Hiroshima bomb.
Wow, I never knew the mass of the uranium that went off - that's insane! I never thought they released that sort of information - do you happen to know where that was published/written? .
You don't need much m when you have 3 x 10 ^ 8 to square. In the cgs System (centimeter, gram, second) it's even more: 9 times ten to the tenth squared.Wow, I never knew the mass of the uranium that went off
do you happen to know where that was published/written? (Not doubting you, just curious for more info)
...
It's a really good demonstration of how much energy is tied up in Mass, and what the formula E=mc2 really means in practice.
In the bombing of Hiroshima only about 15grams of mass was converted to energy, thats about a piece of uranium the about the size of a pea.
A 9mm pistol round (think of the tiny bullets used in the hand guns police carry around) weighs about 50% more than the uranium mass converted to energy in the Hiroshima bomb.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?