3 ms·

That would end North Korea.

• DrJokepu 16y ago
  And they know that very well. This is just FUD and what it's really about is Kim Jong-Il trying to consolidate his relationship with the army before his son takes over his position so that the power transfer will be as smooth as possible.
• iwwr 16y ago
  Seoul is just 20km south of the DMZ. Very likely, the North already has a couple of tunnels leading close to the city. A nuclear war would be the end of South Korea too.
  • csomar 16y ago
    It will not end South Korea. Has Japan ended? (it got two bombs). However, it'll cause so much damage, a damage that might need years and years to mend, a damage that South Korea would never want to see.
    • TechNewb 16y ago
      Of course it would not end South Korea. But South Korea geographically is in a much weaker state than Japan was during WWII. First, half of South Korea's population is located in Seoul. Second, Japan is roughly three times as large, and has many more cities with larger populations. Needless to say though, any war is tragic, and hopefully a continuation of the war via violence will not happen, and especially not with nukes.
  • DrJokepu 16y ago
    In a war against North Korea, Seoul would fall quickly and suffer heavy damages either way. It's just simply indefensible, it's way within artillery range. Especially against an enemy that's very well known for its cold disrespect for human life. It's wasting asset and strategist in South Korea and its allies know that very well. I believe (or at least, hope) that South Korea has plans to evacuate Seoul very quickly in case war becomes imminent as they have no chance defending it. (And it's actually 40 kilometers or 30 miles and not 20, sorry to be pedant, can't help my inner geography geek)