Korean situation thread

[ShadowDragon8685]

<Much Wisdom>

See, that's why I ask these kinds of things.

Obviously, a nuclear first-strike is out of the question, since nobody wants nukes falling in their back yard, and even if they didn't feel such overwhelming loyalty to Dear Friend Leader as to play a quick round of global thermonuclear annihilation in retaliation - or even enter the fight at all - the Chinese and Russians would probably make life in the western world as miserable as they could for the next half a century or so.

And biological is right out, even if we were tooled up for it, nobody wants to be the son of a bitch to open that file of worms first. What about chemical, though? Would the equation change any if we were willing (and able) to break out the stocks of chemical weapons? I doubt something like mustard gas or nerve gas is going to bother the North - I imagine they have gas masks everywhere - but what about, say, something very vigorously incendiary?


Or would that be a fancy burninating way of achieving the same effect as regular bombing? Basically, thought was to wipe out the North's ability to bombard the south's civilian population in a surprise attack with a preferable dose of fuck-your-leadership in the mix and take the rest as we go. We don't need to wipe them out completely in a surprise invasion, just blunt their spear and then mop the rest up the old fashioned way.

[Ritterin Sophia]

They have been up to so many antics over the last few decades. Asians are more or less acquainted to this nonsense, but the rest of the world is far and away from this.

If one were to consider the airliner they blew up, this is nothing.

This time may be different, mind you they're just rumors, but from what I hear the ROK may be rewriting their ROE to be more punitive than for de-escalation.

[Phantasee]

<Much Wisdom>

You're confusing in-depth technical knowledge with wisdom. Real wisdom is this:

Plus, why risk it when the DPRK is falling apart anyway? Waiting is in everyone's ultimate best interest.

[ShadowDragon8685]

<Much Wisdom>

You're confusing in-depth technical knowledge with wisdom. Real wisdom is this:

Plus, why risk it when the DPRK is falling apart anyway? Waiting is in everyone's ultimate best interest.

The answer to 'why risk it' is because 'if we don't, a batshit insane strongman might come to power and declare a death-or-glory kamikaze jihad crusade secular-holy-war against the South in the name of uniting True Korea or having all True Koreans killed in the attempt...'

A county that comes apart at the seems mighty do so explosively. Fragments are only a step removed from "fragmentation," after all. As in "grenade."

It might be better to pound the DPRK's ability to fragment explosively into everybody's backyard into paste before they get a chance to do so. It might not be, I don't know. I was just wondering about the feasbility of said pasting.

[Shroom Man 777]

So, to stop a potential future attack by a shitty nation with 1960s equipment, the USA and South Korea would rather start an actual war and end up getting themselves into a sticky situation wasting bombs, getting Seoul artillery-ed, and spending god knows how many years and dollars on an occupation of North Korea? And somehow this is preferable to just sitting down and chillaxing while North Korea continues on to fuck itself and gradually disintegrate over time, and just shrug off the occasional dick-moves by the North?

EDIT:

Okay, hey. At least America won't have to lie about WMDs to get itself, and the rest of whatever Coalition it can get, into a shitty war and occupation of a very militarized country rich in materials to turn into IEDs, a country that also happens to be right beside a couple of antagonizing great nations' (China and Russia) backyards.

[Archaic`]

Honestly, it's not so much potential as matter of time in the case of North Korea. We've already been calling their bluffs (they threatened war months ago over the Korea/US wargames), and it would cause a massive loss of face to their leadership if they don't go through with something to show they really mean business. If we continue to call their bluffs, they're going to be forced to escalate from internal pressures.

[ShadowDragon8685]

So, to stop a potential future attack by a shitty nation with 1960s equipment, the USA and South Korea would rather start an actual war and end up getting themselves into a sticky situation wasting bombs, getting Seoul artillery-ed, and spending god knows how many years and dollars on an occupation of North Korea? And somehow this is preferable to just sitting down and chillaxing while North Korea continues on to fuck itself and gradually disintegrate over time, and just shrug off the occasional dick-moves by the North?

The thinking is that if the DPRK goes into the shitter and whomever gets his hand on the button that starts the war song is batshit insane enough to press it, Seoul is going to be pounded into flinders.

The idea behind the preemptive attack is that you have the South's troops rolling towards the DMZ to reinforce it and can sound the "everybody to the bunkers, this is not a drill, The Big One is happening" alarms in Seoul and Inchon before the North's artillery has a chance to open up.

And in what universe does sinking a warship and shelling an inhabiting island count as merely a dick-move? Do you think that anybody else would shrug it off if the U.S. just sailed in, sank a warship, shelled an island (well, cruise missile'd it,) and said "what're you gonna do about it?"

A dick move is the games of jet aircraft chicken the Russians took up playing again. Those are overt acts of war.

Okay, hey. At least America won't have to lie about WMDs to get itself, and the rest of whatever Coalition it can get, into a shitty war and occupation of a very militarized country rich in materials to turn into IEDs, a country that also happens to be right beside a couple of antagonizing great nations' (China and Russia) backyards.

I think the South can take the lion's share (and the bear's share and the tiger's share) of the occupation.

[Metahive]

So, to stop a potential future attack by a shitty nation with 1960s equipment, the USA and South Korea would rather start an actual war and end up getting themselves into a sticky situation wasting bombs, getting Seoul artillery-ed, and spending god knows how many years and dollars on an occupation of North Korea? And somehow this is preferable to just sitting down and chillaxing while North Korea continues on to fuck itself and gradually disintegrate over time, and just shrug off the occasional dick-moves by the North?

If you haven't noticed by now, doing headless, reckless and morally dubious things in the name of some nebulous "higher good" is a major fetish of our exalted friend, the dragon of shadows and numbers here, be it dropping napalm all over North Korea to avert "a batshit insane strongman might come[ing] to power and declare a death-or-glory kamikaze jihad crusade secular-holy-war against the South" or putting innocents in torture prisons so that dumb Americans don't put "a batshit insane Republican [in]to power and declare a death-or-glory kamikaze jihad crusade secular-holy-war against the World" out of pants pissing mass-hysteria.

I'm of the opinion as well that NK should be allowed to implode from within rather than risk open warfare that might throw the whole world into chaos and turmoil. My relatives in SK are annoyed and outraged by NK's constant murderous trolling, but they know just well that this is preferable to yet another potentially devastating war on the peninsula.

[ShadowDragon8685]

If you haven't noticed by now, doing headless, reckless and morally dubious things in the name of some nebulous "higher good" is a major fetish of our exalted friend, the dragon of shadows and numbers here, be it dropping napalm all over North Korea to avert "a batshit insane strongman might come[ing] to power and declare a death-or-glory kamikaze jihad crusade secular-holy-war against the South" or putting innocents in torture prisons so that dumb Americans don't put "a batshit insane Republican [in]to power and declare a death-or-glory kamikaze jihad crusade secular-holy-war against the World" out of pants pissing mass-hysteria.

Feel free to fuck yourself. Nowhere at all did I advocate putting innocents into 'torture prisons,' and I in fact said those who committed torture ought to be tried and have the book thrown at them.

Also, that's questionably close to the whole 'bringing a vendetta from another thread' thing, and in any event I was asking if anyone had any other ideas. Just like this: I was posing a question, I didn't say "We should burninate all of them norks now!"


Besides, I'm of the opinion that if a batshit insane Republican comes to war and declares a death-or-glory kamikaze jihad-crusade against the world, it'll be anything but a secular war.

I'm of the opinion as well that NK should be allowed to implode from within rather than risk open warfare that might throw the whole world into chaos and turmoil. My relatives in SK are annoyed and outraged by NK's constant murderous trolling, but they know just well that this is preferable to yet another potentially devastating war on the peninsula.

And I'm of the opinion that it's possible that an overwhelming preemptive strike would result in less overall damage to the South Korean Peninsula and less chance of nukes than letting the war start on the North's terms should some psycho decide to start the war and announce it by "murderously trolling" all of Seoul with a massive distributed denial of life attack.

I wanted to talk about that possibility, not declare it to be fact and tub-thump for it to be immediately implemented.

[Shroom Man 777]

The thinking is that if the DPRK goes into the shitter and whomever gets his hand on the button that starts the war song is batshit insane enough to press it, Seoul is going to be pounded into flinders.

The idea behind the preemptive attack is that you have the South's troops rolling towards the DMZ to reinforce it and can sound the "everybody to the bunkers, this is not a drill, The Big One is happening" alarms in Seoul and Inchon before the North's artillery has a chance to open up.

Unless American spies have stolen invisible jet technology from Wonder Woman and the Amazons, or they've managed to waterboard Nightcrawler to make him give up his secrets of teleportation, it will take quite some time to mobilize the amount of forces needed to attack North Korea and destroy it - and unless American special forces are all hut-hut-hutting on the Flash's superspeed treadmill, the Norks will see this accumulation of forces and will make their own preparations as well, so you won't catch them pants down and unaware? Look at how long it took to mobilize the forces for Iraq.

Also, unless the North Koreans get blinded by the sight of so many fat ugly Americans suddenly appearing on their peninsula, they will see the sight of so many fat ugly Americans suddenly appearing on their peninsula. Then they might start lubricating the rigid hard metal shafts of their artillery shells while raising their cannons high and mightily, erect and engorged at trajectories bound to send their explosive ejaculations elsewhere?

And in what universe does sinking a warship and shelling an inhabiting island count as merely a dick-move? Do you think that anybody else would shrug it off if the U.S. just sailed in, sank a warship, shelled an island (well, cruise missile'd it,) and said "what're you gonna do about it?"

A dick move is the games of jet aircraft chicken the Russians took up playing again. Those are overt acts of war.

And yet, they didn't declare war after their ship sank?

And yes, I think quite a few countries would shrug off if the USA sailed in and blew up their battle boats.

I think the South can take the lion's share (and the bear's share and the tiger's share) of the occupation.

What if the South Koreans do not want and prefer to has a cheezburgers instead, desu?


^______________________________^

And I'm of the opinion that it's possible that an overwhelming preemptive strike would result in less overall damage to the South Korean Peninsula and less chance of nukes than letting the war start on the North's terms should some psycho decide to start the war and announce it by "murderously trolling" all of Seoul with a massive distributed denial of life attack.

I wanted to talk about that possibility, not declare it to be fact and tub-thump for it to be immediately implemented.

Well, those of us here in Asia really don't give a fuck and would rather not have another shitty violent war happen, this time in our continent rather than some Bakalakadakastan nobody gives a fuck about, because wars generally ruin the shit out of economies and gives everyone a hard time, something you Murricans should already know by now. But then again, what do we of the mystical Orient know, we just live near the affected region and aren't, like, thousands of miles away blathering on about shit we don't know about with implications we don't comprehend in the midst of our Murrican hurf-hurf-hurfing, lol who knew am i rite *I'm a smarmy asshole*, am I right?

[Metahive]

Feel free to fuck yourself. Nowhere at all did I advocate putting innocents into 'torture prisons,' and I in fact said those who committed torture ought to be tried and have the book thrown at them.

O, my bad, you just advocated keeping innocents in one torture prison. Makes all the difference I guess.

Also, that's questionably close to the whole 'bringing a vendetta from another thread' thing, and in any event I was asking if anyone had any other ideas. Just like this: I was posing a question, I didn't say "We should burninate all of them norks now!"

It's not vendetta-ish to point out that you keep doing the same fucking thing over and over, you one trick pony. O, and that whole "I'm just asking questions" thing doesn't fly when it's done by those other crazies, so neither won't it fly for you.

Besides, I'm of the opinion that if a batshit insane Republican comes to war and declares a death-or-glory kamikaze jihad-crusade against the world, it'll be anything but a secular war.

I'm extraordinarily relieved that you cleared that up.

And I'm of the opinion that it's possible that an overwhelming preemptive strike would result in less overall damage to the South Korean Peninsula and less chance of nukes than letting the war start on the North's terms should some psycho decide to start the war and announce it by "murderously trolling" all of Seoul with a massive distributed denial of life attack.

Yes! Let's recklessly plunge the korean peninsula into war, for "the best of the people" of course! What could possibly go wrong? And even when, it's just Koreans dying and who cares, they're 4000 miles away anyway!
I have relatives in Korea you fucking shrinkhead! I do not take kindly to people who advocate putting them into a warzone just because maybe the NKs might try something! You do not gamble with lives like that!

[Marcus Aurelius]

And in what universe does sinking a warship and shelling an inhabiting island count as merely a dick-move? Do you think that anybody else would shrug it off if the U.S. just sailed in, sank a warship, shelled an island (well, cruise missile'd it,) and said "what're you gonna do about it?"

In case you didn't notice, something like that already happened in 2003 with Iraq. Sure, the US had the UK and some other countries in the alliance, so it wasn't a completely unilateral action and sure, Saddam was a huge dick himself. But the fact still remains that China, Russia, Germany, France and a lot of other nations didn't approve of the invasion of Iraq and it still happened without anybody offering any kind of assistance to Iraq, let alone putting economic sanctions on the US.

The lesson here remains that the US could shell just about anyone besides the traditional nuclear powers without any serious repercussion apart from strongly worded statements. I doubt there would even be any serious economic sanctions, because the US is so important trade partner for pretty much all major exporting nations in the world. The reason the US does not do that normally is that there is no reason to do so, and it would alienate many allies, which would be disadvantageous in the long run, NOT the fear of military (or even economic) repercussions.

The Norks, on the other hand, do have a fairly good reason to be dicks. They want to extort more food and other support, and they also might have internal political reasons to flex muscles and show who's daddy. They also know that short of shelling a major population center or actually using their nukes they can get away with almost anything, because a war is not in the best interests of South Korea or the US.

[Shroom Man 777]

I have relatives in Korea you fucking shrinkhead! I do not take kindly to people who advocate putting them into a warzone just because maybe the NKs might try something! You do not gamble with lives like that!

It's not ShadowDragon's fault that you are clearly not as brave as him, and not as willing as him to send friends and family and loved ones to die in shitty useless wars in far away countries. I applaud ShadowDragon's willingness to squander the lives of people in useless American wars of jingoism and bullshit. For shame, Metahive. I mean, if you've got relatives already in Korea, that'll save on the freight costs of hauling their remains by air or sea! And if they're Koreans, that means they'll also weigh less than Americans, further saving on costs! Imagine the price ShadowDragon is willing to pay, imagine how higher that price is than yours. You're either not as rich as ShadowDragon, you grotesque poor person, or a bloody stingy cheapskate!


[Yes, this is in very poor taste. I am sorries. I was badly toilet trained so I did not properly learn to control my sphincters to delay the gratification of expelling excrement from my bodies. This is why I have poor impulse control, owing to my inadequacies during the anal stage of my childhood development.]

[Metahive]

Shadow Dragon acts like as if he's a perpetual prisoner in Room 101, always on the lookout for persons he can shove in front of the rats about to pounce at his face and gnaw his eyes out. It's not just him alone either. It's simply too easy to talk about "sacrifices for the greater good" that have to be made when those sacrifices are the lives or the well-being of people whose names one probably can't even pronounce properly. That's why I think that everyone who advocates waging war on foreign soil to first imagine having friends and loved ones living near that soil. Let's see how much you can wank about deploying nuclear, biological or chemical weapons when it's your uncle that might get his skin blistered off by a dose of Mustard Gas or die from radiation poisoning.

And yeah, Dragon, I've noticed that deploying such is for you not much of a moral issue but more one of practicability and political expedience.

"And biological is right out, even if we were tooled up for it, nobody wants to be the son of a bitch to open that file of worms first. What about chemical, though? Would the equation change any if we were willing (and able) to break out the stocks of chemical weapons? I doubt something like mustard gas or nerve gas is going to bother the North - I imagine they have gas masks everywhere - but what about, say, something very vigorously incendiary?"

Stop treating the world like a Civ 4 session, please, there're real people behind those numbers, you know.

Yes, this is in very poor taste. I am sorries. I was badly toilet trained so I did not properly learn to control my sphincters to delay the gratification of expelling excrement from my bodies. This is why I have poor impulse control, owing to my inadequacies during the anal stage of my childhood development.

Never mind, you just say out loud what some of those warmongers don't dare to.

[Shroom Man 777]

The warmongers are just being polite in not saying that your lives aren't as important to them as other more valuable things, and so does not register in their radar's list of priorities. It would be quite rude to say that other people aren't human beings. We must be civilized, after all.

[Dartz]

Theres a quote from the Heavy Gear campaign I'm in atm, that seems strangely appropriate.

"I wonder if anybody who ever says "Hey lets go to war with the North!" will actually have to go there?"

[Ritterin Sophia]

Jesus Christ, Shroomy, quit being a fucking troll.

So, to stop a potential future attack by a shitty nation with 1960s equipment, the USA and South Korea would rather start an actual war and end up getting themselves into a sticky situation wasting bombs, getting Seoul artillery-ed, and spending god knows how many years and dollars on an occupation of North Korea? And somehow this is preferable to just sitting down and chillaxing while North Korea continues on to fuck itself and gradually disintegrate over time, and just shrug off the occasional dick-moves by the North?

How is retaliating to an attack starting a war? By any honest interpretation of events, the DPRK would've started the war.

And following that how is America responsible for any possible change the ROK might make in their policies? They're the ones who were thinking of asking us to return tactical nukes to Korea, it was not a plan we came up with.

Also, quit fucking strawmanning the position. When North Korea goes it's either going to be them flooding over the DMZ or it's going to be a civil war. In either case the prevailing thought on such a scenario is that it would be best to get it over with now, than latter when they would have nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles or tactical nuclear weaponry.

Never mind, you just say out loud what some of those warmongers don't dare to.

Yeah, because the 'warmongers' you're talking about are often telling the truth.

Yes! Let's recklessly plunge the korean peninsula into war, for "the best of the people" of course! What could possibly go wrong? And even when, it's just Koreans dying and who cares, they're 4000 miles away anyway!
I have relatives in Korea you fucking shrinkhead! I do not take kindly to people who advocate putting them into a warzone just because maybe the NKs might try something! You do not gamble with lives like that!

Why thank you for that strongly worded strawman in the form of an appeal to emotions. That is surely conducive to a constructive and informative arguments rather than shouting contests of who can curse the most often and the loudest.

[Metahive]

As I already said, it's amazingly easy to say "let's get it over with" when the warzone is far away and filled with people you don't know. The warmongers are right? The same warmongers who were whining about Saddam's secret intentions to nuke the West and who keep nagging that Iran needs to be invaded because its full of evil fanatics who will surely lob nuclear bombs at everyone out of religious delusion once they have them?
I'm sorry, but this sort of warmonger has lost a lot of credibility lately. The NKs have a long history of murderous trolling, their economy depends on it after all. It's not worth to risk an all out war on the peninsula for it and especially not because a bunch of high and mighty armchair generals demand it. If you have hard evidence of the NKs planning an all out assault on the South, by all means let's hear about it, because that's the minimum required to justify a preemptive attack.

[Lagmonster]

Here's a serious question to stick into the middle of the 'should they go to war' discussion: How much MONEY is South Korea making right now, how good is life in places like Seoul, that would all go up in smoke the minute people started pulling triggers?

I can think of at least a few Korean companies that make what has to be pots of money from international customers. And if New York City has taught us anything, it's that pots of money and a decent life is a fairly strong incentive to ignore feelings about fifty people dying violent deaths in your extended neighbourhood.

[Ritterin Sophia]

As I already said, it's amazingly easy to say "let's get it over with" when the warzone is far away and filled with people you don't know. The warmongers are right? The same warmongers who were whining about Saddam's secret intentions to nuke the West and who keep nagging that Iran needs to be invaded because its full of evil fanatics who will surely lob nuclear bombs at everyone out of religious delusion once they have them?

There's a reason 'warmongers' was in quotation and why I said you're strawmanning the position, retard. It's not the US who may be changing their position away from de-escalation and USFK is supposed to become Korea Command later this year entirely under ROK authority.

I'm sorry, but this sort of warmonger has lost a lot of credibility lately. The NKs have a long history of murderous trolling, their economy depends on it after all. It's not worth to risk an all out war on the peninsula for it and especially not because a bunch of high and mighty armchair generals demand it. If you have hard evidence of the NKs planning an all out assault on the South, by all means let's hear about it, because that's the minimum required to justify a preemptive attack.

The part you're missing, because you're a strawmanning retard, is that it's not armchair generals advocating this. It's the ROK who are moving to meet the DPRK's escalating moves at every turn. What I'm doing is attacking your's and Shroomy's idiocy that this is somehow America's fault when all we've done is condemn the DPRK attack like... oh... every other fucking civilized country. Also, nice strawman, about a pre-emptive attack I never said existed.

[Metahive]

According to my own knowledge and the opinions of my relatives on location, if the war on the Korean peninsula breaks out again, the South will lose it, no matter whose forces prevail on the battlefield in the end. First because of the potential destruction of population and production centres and second due to the mass of refugees flooding south as well as a completely ruined north that's guaranteeing years of political instability and would require giant amounts of money and effort to get into shape in case the Sung regime disintegrates, which has a high probability of happening as a result of a war.

Why thank you for that strongly worded strawman in the form of an appeal to emotions. That is surely conducive to a constructive and informative arguments rather than shouting contests of who can curse the most often and the loudest.

Where's the strawman? You and your friend the Dragon do tell me it's for the best of SK to wage war upon the North preemptively, don't you? Also, excuse me for caring for the lives and well-being of my relatives. I will make sure to never commit the sin of spoling the fun for dedicated armchair generals again by letting them know that there's a very real cost attached to reckless warmongering.

[Ritterin Sophia]

According to my own knowledge and the opinions of my relatives on location, if the war on the Korean peninsula breaks out again, the South will lose it, no matter whose forces prevail on the battlefield in the end. First because of the potential destruction of population and production centres and second due to the mass of refugees flooding south as well as a completely ruined north that's guaranteeing years of political instability and would require giant amounts of money and effort to get into shape in case the Sung regime disintegrates, which has a high probability of happening as a result of a war.

You're going to get that any fucking way. If the ROK launches a pre-emptive war you're getting Seoul hit and shit load of impoverished refugees. If the DPRK does it, you'll get the same because they aren't going to be able to beat the ROK Armed Forces. If the DPRK goes civil war the loyalist will still wreck Seoul's shit just to spite you. The only difference will be do they have tacnukes or not.

Where's the strawman? You and your friend the Dragon do tell me it's for the best of SK to wage war upon the North preemptively, don't you?

Show me where I advocated a pre-emptive attack on the DPRK.

Also, excuse me for caring for the lives and well-being of my relatives. I will make sure to never commit the sin of spoling the fun for dedicated armchair generals again by letting them know that there's a very real cost attached to reckless warmongering.

OH I'm sorry, you didn't realize it's the ROK doing the 'warmongering' by retaliating against attacks on their own people. Sorry, should've remembered you're only slightly more intelligent than Shadowdragon.

[Metahive]

There's a reason 'warmongers' was in quotation and why I said you're strawmanning the position, retard. It's not the US who may be changing their position away from de-escalation and USFK is supposed to become Korea Command later this year entirely under ROK authority.

You shouldn't throw the accusation of strawmanning around and then burn a few strawmen yourself. Where did I say anything about the US doing anything or changing anything? Quote me, Master Shake. I am talking about specific US citizens like our exalted dragon here the whole time!

The part you're missing, because you're a strawmanning retard, is that it's not armchair generals advocating this. It's the ROK who are moving to meet the DPRK's escalating moves at every turn. What I'm doing is attacking your's and Shroomy's idiocy that this is somehow America's fault when all we've done is condemn the DPRK attack like... oh... every other fucking civilized country.

The ROK is preparing a preemptive all out attack? After all, that's what ShadowDragon is talking about and what I was replying to! Pay attention.

Also, nice strawman, about a pre-emptive attack I never said existed.

"In either case the prevailing thought on such a scenario is that it would be best to get it over with now, than latter when they would have nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles or tactical nuclear weaponry."
That's called "lying".

[Ritterin Sophia]

shouldn't throw the accusation of strawmanning around and then burn a few strawmen yourself. Where did I say anything about the US doing anything or changing anything? Quote me, Master Shake. I am talking about specific US citizens like our exalted dragon here the whole time!

The part where you said Shroomy was telling the truth, with no reservations, which included blaming the US for the ROK switching to a retaliation rather than deescalation policy.

The ROK is preparing a preemptive all out attack?

I did not say that, I said that the DPRK is continually escalating the current tensions with every attack.

"In either case the prevailing thought on such a scenario is that it would be best to get it over with now, than latter when they would have nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles or tactical nuclear weaponry."
That's called "lying".

Yes, that is indeed what you're doing. I did not say whether they should make a preemptive attack or whether it would be outcome of the escalation caused by the ROK retaliating to DPRK attacks. I also never said I agreed with it or not. Simply that you're misrepresenting the argument.

[Metahive]

You're going to get that any fucking way. If the ROK launches a pre-emptive war you're getting Seoul hit and shit load of impoverished refugees. If the DPRK does it, you'll get the same because they aren't going to be able to beat the ROK Armed Forces. If the DPRK goes civil war the loyalist will still wreck Seoul's shit just to spite you. The only difference will be do they have tacnukes or not.

What the war- and scaremongering crowd is failing to do is presenting evidence that the North will go and wage war first or even try a nuclear first strike. Simply saying "they totally might try that" is not fucking enough.

Also, SK putting american nukes back on their soil =/= preparing for a preemptive strike as fucking demanded by the Dragon. That's called a threatening gesture and more or less traditional when it comes to NK's trolling in order to not lose all too much face.
SK overlooked NK's various attempts on its presidents. If that didn't lead to war, some shelled soldiers for sure won't.

Show me where I advocated a pre-emptive attack on the DPRK.

Scroll up a few posts. Also, you've just done it again, or what's with the implication of the North potentially nuking Seoul if *wink* *wink* nothing is done now?

OH I'm sorry, you didn't realize it's the ROK doing the 'warmongering' by retaliating against attacks on their own people. Sorry, should've remembered you're only slightly more intelligent than Shadowdragon.

You're one to call my intellgence into question *pat* *pat*.