What does "Asymmetric units" mean? Should "Seoul" here be "Pyongyang"?

[NewHopeR]

Context:

However, others say no advanced warning will come for some types of attacks, such as launching thousands of rockets aimed at Seoul.
"Asymmetric units can attack relatively quickly and with relatively no warning," said Bruce Bechtol, a former Northeast Asia analyst in the Defense Intelligence Agency.
After weeks of threats against the United States and South Korea, North Korea told foreign diplomats on Wednesday that it would no longer be able to guarantee the safety of foreigners in Seoul. The prospect of a North Korean missile launch is "considerably high," South Korea's foreign minister said Wednesday.


More:
Analysts debate whether signs point to N. Korea attack

[emsr2d2]

No. Why would it be Pyongyang? Seoul is in South Korea. Pyongyang is in North Korea. The stories say that rockets might be launched from Pyongyang and they will be aimed at Seoul. It would be very odd for North Korea to aim missiles at its own capital.

[konungursvia]

I disagree, and it should be Pyongyang. North Korea can't protect or fail to protect South Korean diplomats in Seoul.

Asymmetric units -- this is a modern term for special forces, small mobile groups, Viet Cong style jungle attacks after which the perpetrator simply vanishes, urban soldiers disguised among civilians -- in short, units designed to fight in asymmetric warfare, not division vs division, but squad vs division.

[emsr2d2]

I thought the point was that North Korea was advising foreigners in Seoul that they might not be safe because a missile might land there.

[NewHopeR]

I thought the point was that North Korea was advising foreigners in Seoul that they might not be safe because a missile might land there.

Earlier reporters all said NK warned foreigners in Pyongyang, not Seoul. The reason is simple: foreigners in Pyongyang are easy to inform, while the latter hard or impossible. Besides, NK threatens to attack US cities including Austin, Texas, so why doesn't NK inform foreigners in United States to evacuate, saying it can't guarantee their safety? Because there's no need to, except for the foreigners who are in NK capital since a US counterattack will be immediate and inevitable.

[konungursvia]

In Pyongyang there are hundreds of Western diplomats, and NK warned those countries it cannot guarantee these diplomats' safety. It was a bluster or a threat, to those Britons and Americans in Pyongyang.

[emsr2d2]

Fair enough. It should read Pyongyang then. I must admit, I assumed most foreign countries had pulled their diplomats out of NK already.

[5jj]

On the limited context we have, I agree with ems's original thought that 'Seoul' is correct.

[5jj]

The next paragraph in the article seems to confirm this:

North Korea has also urged tourists in South Korea to take precautions, warning a nuclear war was imminent. Diplomats and foreign residents appeared to be staying put, and businesses and schools were open in the South Korean capital.

North Korea has warned not only diplomats but also tourists in the South. The diplomats appear to be ignoring the warning.

[emsr2d2]

The next paragraph in the article seems to confirm this:

North Korea has also urged tourists in South Korea to take precautions, warning a nuclear war was imminent. Diplomats and foreign residents appeared to be staying put, and businesses and schools were open in the South Korean capital.

North Korea has warned not only diplomats but also tourists in the South. The diplomats appear to be ignoring the warning.

Thanks for that. I couldn't open the link for some reason so I based my comments on the little I had heard in the news. I thought I heard on the radio news that they had warned those in Seoul that they might not be safe.