Earlier quoted context omitted.
South Koreans seem to be calmer about the entire situation than just everybody else. And I say that as a Brazilian, that is not only on the literally opposite end of the world, but also did not get to see a war since WWII and even then had minimal involvement. You certainly know something that nobody else knows.
Perhaps because they understand the reality of the situation better? Look, almost everyone gets the situation with North Korea wrong. NK has exactly one deterrent from being invaded, and that is a ton of very boring, very conventional artillery that is within firing distance of Seoul. In the case of NK being invaded, they would immediately start shelling Seoul and trying to reduce it to rubble. If you start evacuatin…
On the other hand, I think everyone except possibly Kim and his minions wants peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. The Chinese certainly do, and I think even the Russians, though they have less at stake, would not want to see war break out — certainly not nuclear war, which would endanger Vladivostok. What I don't know is how badly Kim wants to conquer South Korea. He likes to argue that his nukes are for defensive purposes, and that's not unreasonable under the circumstances, but the problem is that they can be used offensively as well. What I would like to see is a peace treaty that obliges not just us and Japan but also China and Russia to participate in obliterating North Korea should they attack South Korea or anyone else.
That sounds like a pipe dream, but consider this. We could provide South Korea with nukes. Yes, it would be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (I wouldn't suggest abrogating the treaty altogether, but it has clearly failed its purpose in this instance. A case can be made for restoring the regional balance of power.) We shouldn't bluff, but a credible threat to nuclear-arm South Korea might bring China and even Russia to the table.