The Dong-A Ilbo, printing a summary of a piece that will run in the December edition of its monthly magazine, did a pretty damn good job of explaining why South Koreans are more than a little touchy about the prospect of war on their peninsula by depicting the results of both a U.S. nuclear strike on North Korea and a North Korean nuclear strike on Seoul. Neither scenario was very pretty. In a worse case scenario postulating a North Korean 15 kiloton ground burst on Samgakji, Yongsan-gu, Seoul — about a 20 minute walk from my house — 10 percent of Seoul’s population could perish, both from the blast itself and the resulting fallout. As for the North, a U.S. 1.2 megaton hit on South Pyeongan province’s Bukchang Air Base (Global Security.org has its complement listed at 36 Su-25s and 24 MiG-29s) could kill as many 1.35 million, depending on which way the winds were blowing. Definitely some sobering stuff, and you’re highly encouraged to the translation I did up below.
North Korean Nuke Attack on Seoul Would Kill 1.25 Million (Dong-A Ilbo)
What would happen to the Korean Peninsula should the U.S. launch nuclear strikes on North Korea, or North Korea launched nuclear strikes on South Korea?
People are in shock courtesy a report in the December edition of the Shin Dong-A Magazine on “Nuclear Use Scenarios on the Korean Peninsula,” which says that if nuclear weapons were used on the Korean Peninsula, “1.25 million Seoul citizens would be killed, and Yongsan, Gangnam, Seocho and Songpa wards would be turned into nuclear fallout death zones” and “at least 250,000 and up to 1.35 million North Koreans would be killed.”
The scenario, quoting U.S. Defense Department materials, was the result of analysis by the Washington-based anti-nuclear group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and is the first detailed report we’ve come across detailing scenarios in which nuclear weapons were used on the Korean Peninsula.
Attack on Bukchang Air Base, South Pyeongan province could kill 1.35 million
The Shin Dong-A, quoting a report by NRDC’s Dr. Thomas B. Cochran announced during an international security seminar in Nanjing, China last month, forecasted the targets and probable losses in the event that the U.S. decided to bomb core military facilities in North Korea using nuclear weapons.
If 1.2-megaton bunkerbusters are used, probable fatalities are 1.10 million. The report said that realistically, the possibility that the U.S. would use powerful strategic nuclear weapons like ICBMs on North Korea was not high, but it did say that within the U.S., there were calls for the country to develop relatively low-yield nuclear bunkerbusters and launch pre-emptive strikes against the North.
In particular, when one considers that the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush and the atmosphere that has accompanied the start of his second term that U.S. foreign policy has gotten even more hardline, the possibility of an attack is not low.
In the event the U.S. did attack North Korea with nuclear weapons, a scenario in which the U.S. used 400 kiloton or 1.2 megaton nuclear bunkerbusters against underground military facilities in North Korea would be the most likely.
As it would be difficult to anticipate much military effect from using nuclear weapons on large cities such as Pyongyang, and much international outcry could be expected, such strikes were excluded from possible options.
Of 25 possible military targets within North Korea, the one that most likely topped the list of potential targets was Bukchang Air Base in South Pyeongan Province, as ROK-U.S. allied air power would fight fierce battles with units from that base for air supremacy over the Korean Peninsula in the even of an emergency.
If Bukchang AB were destroyed with a 5 kiloton nuclear warhead, it would could 6,000 casualties; with a 100 kiloton device, 100,000 casualties; a 400 kiloton device, 400,000 casualties; and if a 1.2 megaton device were used, 1.10 million casualties could be expected, according to NRDC analysis.
In the worst case, in which 1.2 megaton device were used in July, deaths could reach up to 1.35 million, and cities in the southeastern part of South Hamgyeong province like Wonsan and Muncheon would experience fallout.
1.25 Seoulites dead; Gangnam, Seocho, Songpo fallout zones
The other case analyzed in the report was a North Korean nuclear strike on Seoul.
Considering North Korea’s level of technology, the yield of a North Korean devise would be hard-pressed to surpass that of the “Little Boy” (15 kilotons) or “Fat Man” (22 kilotons) dropped by the U.S. on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
The report postulated that of the expected 4-5 nuclear warheads in North Korea’s possession, only one makes it through the ROK-U.S. air defenses and is successfully delivered.
In this case, on what part of Seoul would it fall?
NRDC indicated the strongest candidate to get hit would be Yongsan’s Samgakji neighborhood [Gee, thanks guys - within walking distance of my house. Couldn't hit Osan, could you?], where the Defense Ministry, Joint Chiefs, USFK Command, and Combined Forces Command are located. If North Korea were to launch an all-out war immediately following its use of nuclear weapons, this would be the most likely scenario.
The scenario assumed the North Koreans would wait for a northwesterly wind to minimize losses to North Korean troops advancing south.
If a single 15-kiloton yield nuclear warhead were dropped on Samgakji, Yongsan, Seoul, what would happen?
At first, it assumes a 15 kiloton airburst 500 meters above Samgakji, in which case there would be almost no losses from fallout.
The Defense Ministry and Joint Chiefs, the direct targets of the attack, as well as the U.S. Yongsan Garrison and War Memorial would be vaporized. All of Yongsan-gu from Hu’am-dong to Ichon would immediately be reduced to ashes.
In the area around Gwanghwamun and Namdaemun, including Seoul Station and Seoul City Hall, most of the buildings would be partially destroyed, and skyscrapers would likely collapse. The Central Government Complex, Foreign Ministry and Cheong Wa Dae [and the Chosun Ilbo!] would fall within the damage radius. Toward the west, Mapo, Seogyo-dong and Yeoui-do would be included [within the damage radius], and the KLI 63 Building would come down. Toward the south, Sangdo-dong and Dongjak-dong, and to the east Banpo, Apgujeong, and Cheongdam-dong would likely suffer damage.
Through this direct damage from the blast, 400,000 Seoulites would perish instantly [including the Marmot, which might suck], with an additional 220,000 to follow later, according to NRDC analysis of simulation results.
Well, what would happen in the worst case? [Not that it would matter for the Marmot]
If the warhead were to go off 100 meters above Samgakji producing relatively little fallout, 840,00 would die; in case of a ground burst that would produce the most amount of fallout, 1.25 million would die. In the worst case, 10 percent of Seoul’s population could perish.
Immediate deaths would total 300,000, another 100,000 would die from injuries, while short-term deaths from fallout would total 550,000, with long-term deaths from fallout totaling 350,000, according to NRDC analysis.
In reality, in the event of a nuclear explosion, fatalities could surpass those totals. NRDC figures that in highly urbanized Seoul, losses from a nuclear blast would be at least six times greater than those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and at most 10 times greater.
Peacefully stopping North’s nukes; U.S. must swear off nuke attack on North
The Shin Dong-A said the results of the NRDC’s “Nuclear Use Scenarios on the Korean Peninsula” presents the two pressing questions facing the Korean government in condensed form.
One is to block North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons in a peaceful way, while the other is to make the U.S. abandon plans to attack the North with nukes in the event of an emergency.
22 Comments
“Couldn?€™t hit Osan, could you?”
Gee thanks, Robert. But we all know that Seoul is the center of the hub, the universe, and everything. I’m sure in the event of a war, the NORKS have something nasty in store for us rubes here at Osan as well…maybe not the “sea of fire” scenario like Seoul, but something just as evil, but on a lesser scale. How about “puddle of smoke”…
Actually, this article makes no mention of the worst affect of a nuke blast, the fire winds, which end up causing more damage and death than the blast itself does. In a city center as densely populated as Seoul you can expect the damage and death to be more than these estimates give. Sorry to add to the bad news scenario…
Oh…fallout ISN’T apart of the the fire winds btw…
Only Korea?
How about Japan? NORKS are aiming their missiles west as well, and Tokyo is well in its sight as well. Even if they don’t, a significant amount of Japanese will die due to radiation fall outs when the wind blows west. So will the Chinese in the North Korean border. A nuclear conflict in Korea will be not devestating only to Korea, it will irriversibly effect densly populated China and Japan as well. What kind of effect will that have on the world economy? You can guess.
And plus, the world will have a humanitarian disaster in epic proportionse. With millions dead, injured, irradiated what will be the response?
Why concentrate on Seoul? What about Beijing? Tokyo? Vladivostok? Newark?
Isn’t it highly unlikely that Korean would kill Korean? There have been 900 invasions by foreign forces over the 5000 years of history. An non-unified Korea is just another small example of the foreigner’s consistent desire to disrupt peace in the the Korean nation and eliminate the Korean race. Koreans do not hurt one another, they never have and they never will.
Kimbob hit a key point and hardyandtiny made me laugh.
I’ve always said, even without the nukes, and for that matter WMDs altogether, the North has a good enough deterent to make a military move against it unacceptable to the US.
The damage to South Korea would be bad enough, but major strikes against Japan with WMD missiles would make things much worse in many ways.
That is why getting nukes is not a bad strategy for the North Korean regime even if it is horrible for the North Korean people, because NK will never get the kind of bailout it wants as long as it keeps going after nukes.
By the way, hardyandtiny —- in your 5,000 years of history about about 1,000 invasions
hardyandtiny was just being sarcastic, usinkorea.
I did some rather quick calculations of my own for casualty statistics. Assuming a surface blast of a one megaton device in Seoul, according to a PBS documentary, the blast radius of absolute destruction would be about 1.7 miles from epicenter, with a fatality rating of 98% for everyone in this radius. Some quick math and the surface area covered is about 9.07 square miles. Now according to a 1999 figure, the population density of urban Seoul is 75825 persons per square mile. This means we can expect 688,000 people to be essentially vaporized. (True there is a 2% survival rate, but my guess is that they would die relatively quickly after the initial blast anyway).
Now the second level of blast damage would extend 2.7 miles from the epicenter. Subtracting the 9.07 sq mile circle of complete destruction from the new area, it still leaves another 13.8 sq miles affected by the blast. Fortunately people here and look forward to only a 50% fatality rating. So some more quick math would leave another 524,000 dead in this zone. Now there is one more tertiary ring of a one megaton nuclear blast that extends upwards to 4.7 miles. So excluding the areas of the first two levels, the third ring would consist of approximately 46.5 sq miles. Lucky for the folks in this area, the immediate fatality rates are only 5% so you can look forward to roughly 176,000 being killed in the outer periphery of the blast.
So based on my sketchy calculations. A one megaton ground detonation in Seoul will result in an immediate 1.38 million deaths. This of course completly ignores all wounded(whom are more than likely to die due to lack of treatment in the aftermath of a nuclear blast) and any collateral or fallout damage. Fortunately for you Mr. Marmot, if you are more than 2.7 miles away from such a blast center, you will be spared from an immediate quick death, though likely you could easily be killed by fires or fallout, or maybe even flesh-eating mutant radioactive adjummas :).
Going over the PBS figures again, it appears that your luck has run out Mr. Marmot :(. A 1 megaton surface blast, in addition to the pressure damage the blast would leave 30 miles out irradiated at a level of 3000 rem. (more than lethal, expect deaths within a few hours or day) For those who are within 90 miles, the dosage would be 900 rem (Again lethal, expect to die between 2-14 days without treatment). For those upwards of 160 miles away, expect extensive cell damage and radiation poisoning that will most likely leave you with some sort of cancer (300 rem), also you will lose your hair. All of these fallout measurements are based on a 15mph wind speed with direction due east and an exposure time frame of 7 days. So if you can get the hell out of dodge quickly, you maybe able to escape the radiation.
An airburst of a one megaton bomb however would cause much more pressure damage, but would leave less fallout.
There weren’t any calculations as for the casualties of a 1 megaton airburst but there were for a 25 megaton airburst. Though fortunately no one has 25 megaton nuclear bombs as they are unwieldly for military purposes. The largest nuclear warheads still armed on missiles are likely Chinese or Russian, the U.S. using generally somewhat smaller warheads. I’m not sure what the Russians are arming their missiles with, but a Chinese DF-5A ICBM comes equipped with a 5 megaton warhead.
For curiosities sake, the PBS documentary also had information on the results of a 25 megaton airburst. Amazingly enough, the zone of absolute destruction has a radius of over 6.7 miles. I’m not sure how big Seoul is entirely but the first two major destruction zones at 6.7 miles and 10.7 miles should instantly kill 20 million. However, I’m not sure if there are even that many people in Seoul so the weapon is probably overkill, which is probably why the nuclear powers prefer smaller warheads.
Though take heart Mr. Marmot, whatever nuclear weapons the North Koreans could have are likely not to exceed a few kilotons as the Korean papers made mention of, though even still, the total aggregate fatalities would probably end up surpassing a million. Perhaps now is a good time to start building a bomb shelter?
In the even of a surprise North Korean attack, I don’t believe you’ll have enough warning time to get your ass into the bomb shelter.
In the event of a US preemptive attack on North Korea, we will all know something is up, once the State Department starts to evacuate American and other Western citizens. I do not believe the US government will allow thousands of its own citizens to perish without giving them the chance to get out.
GoJoseon, “Land Of Morning Calm”! Ignorant foreign bastard!
“By the way, hardyandtiny ?€”- in your 5,000 years of history about about 1,000 invasions ?€”?€“ do you included the Korguryeo, Pakchae, Silla period and beyond? I?€™m just trying to figure out how you came to those figures?€?..”
Thanks Jing - I was feeling pretty good about myself knowing that I was outside of the kill zone on Marmot’s map (I’m in Mokdong), but after reading your post I am thinking about moving to Samgakji just so it will be over in a second. All very very scary thoughts.
A timely translation and posting, M. Did the previous thread stimulate you to translate on this subject when normally you wouldn’t have bothered?
/sarcasm on/
Gosh, there seems to be quite a horrified tone coming through in your translation from the original.
“…People are in shock….when one considers that the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush and the atmosphere that has accompanied the start of his second term that U.S. foreign policy has gotten even more hardline,….the possibility of an attack is not low…”
It’s a good thing this kind of analysis was never done in the US and European media, when the US and the Soviet Union were facing each other in Europe with literally thousands of tactical nukes for decades…
Oh wait (slaps self on forehead). Of course such analyses were done, just that nobody in ROK was evidently paying attention or had the imagination to transpose such analyses to their neighborhood.
“…the two pressing questions facing the Korean government in condensed form….One is to block North Korea?€™s possession of nuclear weapons in a peaceful way, while the other is to make the U.S. abandon plans to attack the North with nukes in the event of an emergency.”
There’s only one way to be sure of the latter, ROK. Send the insane American cowboys packing. Then empty out a big portion of the treasury and send the moneybags north. (How much percentage for a DPRK “piece of the action”, like in that original Star Trek episode? An interesting subject for speculation).
Safety and security will be assured, smiles will break all over the peninsula, the birds will start singing, and the bright light of a new dawn will illuminate upturned faces…wait, better scratch that last metaphor, doesn’t seem appropriate somehow.
/sarcasm off/
FWIW, it’s my understanding that the US removed all of its own tactical nuclear warheads from the ROK in 1991, well before the crisis of 1994 with DPRK, and the current period of assumed deployment of “5 to 6″ operational DPRK nukes.
I have no idea if Japan allows US storage of tactical nuclear weapons onshore, but I would think not, given their history. Seems to me I recall earlier periods of intense anti-American demonstrations in Japan, when nuclear-armed US navy ships made port calls.
So I presume a US tactical nuclear weapon counterattack (or attack, if you like –by tactical aircraft gravity bombs, or ship or plane-launched cruise missiles)would have to come from US Naval assets deployed from non-Japanese waters. Or from heavy USAF bombers out of Guam (not Okinawa? — presumably not since Japan regained sovereignty there).
So — since we’re in the “Fail-Safe” mode here — let’s assume a NorK missile nuclear first strike against Guam, during a crisis period of high tension on the peninsula — for whatever reason (deliberate because US heavily engaged elsewhere in the world, or simple miscalculation by NorK, etc.). Also — assume no US carrier task forces in immediate current aerial striking range of NorK.
In this situation, just how does the ROK envision “…make[ing] the U.S. abandon plans to attack the North with nukes in the event of an emergency”? (By ICBM from CONUS or “boomer” subs, or maybe by attack submarine-launched nuke cruise missiles if in range).
Seems to me that the only way to do this is to have all US forces leave the ROK peninsula — before such a contingency happens. Then there’s no longer a reason for such a strike by either side, and the ROK can rest assured that Uncle Sam will keep his nukes “holstered”.
Such is the price of nuclear safety. No matter how you twist and turn, ROK, you’ve got to pay a premium for “catastrophe insurance” — one way or another.
I live on the east coast. In the event of nuclear war, providing you get out in time, you can all crash on my floor.
I heard somewhere that cockroaches and Keith Richards are life forms that would survive nuclear war — a cheering list, to which I’d probably add posts by the incorrigible Nulji Marupan, who would somehow blame Israel for the carnage.
I would think that in the event of a US nuclear attack, the DPRK might ignore the ROK competely, and just go for a spite-attack on Seattle with a long range missile or two. Who knows, I might be safer here than in my old home town of Vancouver, Canada.
But apparently change is in the works up North for the Dear Leader-who-is-a-little-less-dear, and it will be interesting to see what comes about up there.
Interesting post Jing. Just a comment about the rem damage though…those numbers, while true, are for rem damage in a flat concentric circle. Actually, the presence of mountains and depressions change the flash radiation rem damage numbers greatly. If, for example, you live on the OTHER side base of a mountain from a blast, the mountain will absorb much or all of the flash radiation. And the radiation shadow of a mountain extends further back from the base….
Just everyone remember: stay indoors for the 1st 48 hours. The truly hellish half-life particles are running down in that period.
Am I the only one who has kept a sixpack of water bottles under my bed at all times in Korea? Well, have a nice day…
Relax - at least about one megaton nukes. The only way that North Korea could have developed a one megaton nuke is with Chinese help. There - don’t you feel much better now?
Saturday Blogs Roundup
In the same spirit as the previous post, here’s some interesting stuff from the blogosphere from the last couple of days.
Is it just me or does nuking Seoul make no sense? Think about it. The Norks have 12 THOUSAND heavy artillery pieces aimed at Seoul for a reason. They could rain down a shower of hell upon Seoul, obliterating the city, or at least causing huge damage to lives and property. Why nuke it? Why have a huge irradiated piece of property that you will have to deal with if, as the Norks hope, you get to take it over? It makes no sense. Look at it another way. They have about 5 or 6 nukes. Its not like the US that could nuke the moon with 6 thousand ICBMs and still have enough to destroy the world 20 times over. Nukes for the Norks are precious. If they have the conventional capability to destroy Seoul, why waste a nuke?! I may be wrong, but if the crap ever hit the fan, Id bet that Busan would be a far more obvious target for a nuke than Seoul. No one really believes that the Norks have the capability to put a nuke on a warhead. The only way they can deliver one is by plane, or by ship. By plane would be difficult. They would get blown out of the sky if even a wing crossed into SK airspace. So a ship is more likely. Put a nuke on a boat, sail into the port of a big city, and wait. When the time comes, detonate. Busan, Incheon, some Japanese cities like Fukoka would be prime targets of a nuke strike. Not Seoul.
Jing I think you have will have to revise your estimates because of the mountainous topography of the Seoul and surrounding areas. There are numerous mountain ranges with the city itself. Consider the difference between the damage between Nagasaki and Hiroshima and you will see what an important role topography plays in determining loss of life and property during a nuclear attack. If you look at the map provided you can begin to see the mountain ranges that extend across the southeastern border of Seoul. I agree with the above poster about whether or not Seoul would be a target. What use to North Korea would a radioactive parking lot be? More likely he would use biological of chemical weapons in these regions. If you are worried try http://www.samgong.com they sell a great gas mask (k-1 model is used even by US personnel)
txs hldm pkr strtgy
In your free time, visit some helpful info in the field of Txs Hldm Pkr