Yes of course, the US has had the technical ability to glass North Korea since the 50s or 60s, but that's not the "it" we're talking about here. The point obli

Yes of course, the US has had the technical ability to glass North Korea since the 50s or 60s, but that's not the "it" we're talking about here. The point oblio is maintaining upthread is that because SK and her allies have much more advanced weaponry NK doesn't have a chance of standing against them in a conventional conflict. That's true, but misses the point. Before NK had nuclear weapons one of their main deterrents was that they'd had years/decades to fortify conventional artillery at the border pointed at Seul. So even if their military couldn't stand a chance in a conventional war they could plausibly threaten MAD by holding Seul hostage. That's the context in which the border proximity is brought up. Replying to that by saying that Pyongyang is 150 km from the border or whatever is irrelevant. Yes of course the US could win an all-out conventional war with an enemy 50, 150 or 1500 km from its border. That was never in question. The question was whether a relatively weaker enemy could present an outsized threat due to some strategic geographic position. That's been the case with NK precisely because mid-century artillery technology can be dug-in close enough to the border to matter. Whereas if the border happened to be 150 km away those assets could be taken out by missiles once they tried to move in position to shoot on a major target like Seul. Whether the NK artillery actually poses a strategic threat is another matter. I wouldn't be surprised if it's all mapped out be the US/SK and would be taken out in the first 5 minutes of a conflict by targeted missile attacks. But it's not just a strategic question, but whether e.g. NK can make threats that are taken seriously by the SK population for it to pressure its government to make some concessions to NK.