Victor Davis Hanson appears to have lost his frickin' mind:
In the 2006 Lebanon war, Hezbollah and terrorist forces on the West Bank boasted that they had launched more than 8,000 rockets into Israeli cities. Israel claimed the number was closer to 4,000. The entire population of Israel in 2006 was then less than half of greater Seoul. Yet in total, some 40 to 50 Israelis lost their lives to rocket attacks in 2006. The rocket strategy of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas did not deter Israeli military operations, nor did it much affect Israel’s strategic options.
Seoul may well be vulnerable to conventional artillery or rocket strikes. But the usual assessments that the city would be destroyed in minutes by North Korea and therefore the South Korean government is now held hostage in its strategic choices are probably not true.
How so? It's entirely possible many of the Nork's artillery pieces would malfunction in any sustained bombardment and they might well be lacking shells younger than their 'use by' date. Hanson is not saying we should simply ignore the threats made by the Norks; He is saying that we should not automatically assume that the Norks can actually do the things they threaten to do.
Well, I do think that the “NK artillery will vaporize Seoul” trope probably is overstated (like the “only the cockroaches will survive a nuclear war” trope). But I think it’s kind of silly to do what Hanson’s doing in the article, which is to use Hamas and company’s rocket attacks on Israel as some kind of example for what might happen to Seoul if a war breaks out. You’re talking about a smallish kinda-sorta-paramilitary force vs a very large conventional army that’s spent several decades prepping for this.
It's one of the few modern examples to use, unless you want to compare Aleppo?