Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (485490)	6/3/2009 5:45:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574187

I don't think Seoul would be conquered, or leveled (or anything close to leveled). The North Korean forces don't have the equipment, training, air support, or logistical staying power to turn Seoul in to a bigger Stalingrad. Only the longest range artillery could hit the city and it would face air strikes and counter battery fire. So I agree absent fully weaponized and deployable/usable nukes Seoul would be mostly intact (perhaps a better description would be "nearly completely". But "mostly intact" doesn't mean you avoid thousands or tens of thousands of casualties, add in the military casualties and the civilians North of Seoul and it could be hundreds of thousands. Of course while causing those hundreds of thousands of casualties the North Korean military would be severely pounded. Neither the US nor South Korea is as unready as we where when the 1st war happened. There isn't going to be any Pusan/Busan permiter situation. The North Korean military would die in northern South Korea. Its just that they could cause a lot of damage as they die. Hopefully, and in my opinion likely, all of this will never happen.