Quote:
|
Even if NK lost the war, there would be some satisfaction that the industrial and civic hub of your main enemy is now a moonscape.
|
In a high-level strategic wargame conducted a few years ago, an American general estimated that in a full-scale war scenario between the Koreas, casualties in Seoul could be limited to 100,000. That's still a horrifying number -- the most civilian deaths from any military strike since the atomic bombing of Nagasaki -- but it's "only" about 1% of Seoul's population. That's a huge difference from flattening Seoul into a crater.
However, when the "best case scenario" estimate is 100,000 dead civilians, one can understand why South Korea is extremely hesitant to allow the situation to estimate.
Quote:
"My understanding is that we cannot protect Seoul, at least for the first twenty-four hours of a war, and maybe for the first forty-eight." McInerney disputed this, and Mathews asked him to explain.
McInerney: "There's a difference between 'protecting' Seoul and [limiting] the amount of damage Seoul may take."
Mathews: "There are a hundred thousand Americans in Seoul, not to mention ten million South Koreans."
McInerney: "A lot of people are going to die, Jessica. But you still prevail."
Mathews: "I just think we've got to be really careful. We've got to protect Seoul. If your daughter were living in Seoul, I don't think you would feel the U.S. military could protect her in those first twenty-four hours."
McInerney: "No, I do. I believe that we have the capability—whether from pre-emption or response—to minimize the casualties in Seoul."
Mathews: "'Minimize' to roughly what level? A hundred thousand? Two hundred thousand?"
McInerney: "I think a hundred thousand or less."
|
The full article is here. While it's long at six pages, it's well worth the read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...r-game/4029/2/