korea. >> north korea. can you explain to the american public or the rest of the world exactly who they should be listening to in the u.s. government when it comes to north korea and what the united states policy and posture is? states,nk the united and some of you may disagree, but the united states is on the same page. whether it is the white house, state department, department of withse, we are speaking one voice. the world is speaking with one voice. we saw that out of the un security council with a resolution that passed less than ago.k the u.s., along with other nations, condemned north korea for their destabilizing activities. they have taken part in two icbm launches in less than a month. the world remains concerned. >> ok, but you don't think that the president's comments are at odds with those of the secretary's and other officials, or is this kind of a good cop bad cop routine we are seeing, trying to coax the maximum you can get out of the north korean government? >> we have talked about our pre

and north korea. from washington journal, this is about 30 minutes. >> joining us now from los angeles is the senior international researcher at the rand corporation. he is here to discuss u.s.-south korea joint military exercises taking place this week and the threat from north korea. thank you are joining us. >> good morning. host: tell us exactly what will take place tomorrow. what is this joint exercise? the exercise, which is about to take off, is mainly a command post exercise. command post for combined forces with north korea and links them all together with all of the other commands helpghout the peninsula, the new leaders arrive on the peninsula learn how to work together. this is mainly a coordination activity of the commanders. what is the purpose? is this in reaction to the recent rationing -- ratcheting up of rhetoric between the united states and pyongyang? or is this different? long-term thing done for decades. usually in the june and july timeframe. by august, you're ready to get the p

fight with north korea. korea but talk to the united -- the north koreans, my understanding is they want to not talk to south korea but talk to the united states directly. if these talks were to happen, that this came up in this conversation, what is the end point? be about andey what would be on the table? again, my understanding is that the north koreans their ultimate , goal is for the united states not to be on the korean parents a lot, that they be accepted as a country. or if there is some kind of unification that there be two systems for the korean peninsula and i'm interested in hearing are these complete nonstarters? , is there any gray area, or area where these things can be talked about ? >> i think they are nonstarters, notwithstanding former white house advisor steve bannon's abrasive one north korean position which is we might pull our troops out of south korea if they clampdown the missile program. i think that would be a nonstarter. i think, one country two systems would be a nonstarter. virt

or ugh into north korea. we can that is one way influence the north korea people n the ground, getting outside information in there. the reason it influences them is because that information shows are getting and it is incorrect and wrong. host: can the u.s. government a larger role in doing that or are these outside groups talking about sort of the best way to do that right now? uest: i think the way that the united states government can help is by providing some some of the groups doing that work. rights act, up, again, for renewal this year, i think can provide good way for set aside grant money for the organizations doing good work. more calls, gus, line for republicans, go ahead. yes, good morning, thank you for c-span, i really appreciate the show so much. i'm just wondering how this guy power.sibly stay in he sounds like he's a totally nut job, if you will. his people d practically starve to death, hey don't have enough food and i really like the idea of the adio broadcasts, you know, if shine and ligh

>> well, that's up to north korea. the united states isn't going to do anything other than respond to whatever north korea does so the difficulty is with the guy running north korea, you don't know what he's going do. something happened today that seems to have slipped through the cracks in the media and that is that china stunningly said they would not defend north korea if indeed they took first action and the u.s. responded. that's something that nobody has ever heard before and if i were in north korea, boy that would make you run for cover. we've always been under the chinese umbrella and they've said "you're on your own." >> they also said, the chinese state-controlled newspaper the global times said if the u.s. and south korea strike first against north korea china will take action. and the global times newspaper said if north korea launched missiles first, this is a china-controlled newspaper, china would remain neutral which is different than what you just said. are you confident that china is playing ball and

and north korea going on. happened, is this that an indication there is nothing behind the scenes going on at the moment? >> it is possible, but i don't think so. it was close, you would not know about it. i think it is likely, but i korea access an integrated actor. missile launches is the way various release compete against each other. there is no breakthrough that anyone can see, so threatening japan along the way is in the context of the current exercises at the time when people are worried about america striking north korea. i don't see any reason why these two things can't be happening at the same time. >> we often talk about nuclear programs as threats, but they also act as great deterrence. in a way, north korea is basically saying if you attack us, we will go full throttle. when it comes to conventional weapons, south korea is a chess piece easily taken by north korea, but what i don't understand is why retaliate with japan? is this trying to draw in the u.s. to come in closer to take it out? >> i thi

korea, about north korea. they were upset to find out that i had brought in something disturbing to them. this is why i was arrested, not because of what i was doing before. one writer has drafted fascinating books about teaching english to the north korean elite. she has considered your case and said that basically, your case and said that basically, you did things that were not allowed by the regime, and you got punished accordingly. that you sort of brought this upon yourself. would you accept that? i made a mistake by carrying a portable hard drive into the country, but when they realised i brought people to pray and worship inside north korea, they took it as a hostile act to themselves. they did, they accuse you of all sorts of crimes, but it boiled down to plotting to overthrow the government. that is why you were sentenced to 15 years hard labour. 0verthrowing the government by prayer and worship, that was the charge. take me back to that moment, i believe it was 2013 when you were sentenced. you had h

or assault on north korea that would. no but it will lead to nuclear war. the north koreans have short range missiles capable of carrying nukes as far as japan from everything i've heard. why would the united states want to ramp up the tension on this. i don't know it's too dangerous. it just boggles the mind you know i'm always telling my students that. allowing nuclear weapons to exist on planet earth is like leaving a loaded gun in a kindergarten you know soon sooner or later you know we don't abolish these weapons they will abolish us and yet you know we continue to put them at the front of our. of our ability to threaten well they say oh it's very interesting that you're saying that it's very interesting that you're saying that it's because there's only one country in the world that has ever used nucular weapons against the civilian population under me let me go to you in beirut i want to ask and i want to go to right to die and they should not repeat that same mistake on their i want to ask you and then my other gue

aims in north korea and china aims in north korea. trish: china is perfectly happy the way these things are having a unbalanced situation. let me ask you what susan rice said in op-ed in "new york times" this is the key quote. susan rice saying history shows we can, if we must, tolerate, well, this is not the -- history shows we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in north korea. she goes on to say, war is, there we go, the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of soviet nuclear weapons during the cold war. so that's the important part there. she is saying, we did it before. we had a cold war with russia. we can do it again. that is the way to handle this. is that really the right way to handle this. >> thanks for having me, trish. that is literally the most incorrect way to think about this problem in my mind. it is emblematic of the prior administration. trish: let's go in to listen to heather nauert right now at the state department briefing. we'll be back with buck and jamil on the other side. >> wonderin

korea -- fury on north korea. the foreign-policy elite who claim to be shocked also don't have much credibility after their policy across three administrations led to the current north korean danger. while the president's words were unusually colorful, communist style language might have been part of the message. the u.s. has military options to the regimeutralize if they continue to develop long-range missiles and the u.s. is considering those options. jim is joining us from cincinnati on the republican line. caller: i wanted to say, look another way. china has built up the red sea basis andary bases -- does not do anything about that. china is right at the border for north korea. they say to suppress that, north korea is coming over there. they also say the united states [indiscernible] missile to japan and guam and neutralize them. host: two headlines from the washington post -- china says the u.s. threats are to blame for the tensions in north korea, more than war, kim jong-il on wants to stay in power. here i

in connection with north korea, with regard to north korea, what conditions must be met for you to decide that you can start the dialogue? today'sion, at conference, to china, who has influence over north korea, you have addressed measures that need to be taken and there was this.ent on however, until now, with regard to china, they have not sufficiently apply the kind of pressure the united states and japan are seeking. -- theorts magi bat efforts made by japan on the united states, what is it lacking that china is not fully mobilized, place? july, concernsin that north korea changes its course. and if it refrains from imitating and provocative -- intimidating and provocative action, if it is ready to come back to serious dialogue. these are measures -- these measures to be taken are important, first and foremost. there's no sense to dialogue for the sick about -- for the sake of dialogue between japan and the united states or japan and the r.o.k.. the international committee will continue to apply its maximum pressure to north korea in a think there is a necessity in doing so. 90% of tr

envoy to north korea. his name is joseph yun, and several of his counterparts, both the north korean ambassador to the united nations, and also some top officials in the north korean foreign ministry. now, originally, these talks started in may. they were really about the release of u.s. hostages in north korea, and you remember otto warmbier, the young man who was ultimately released by north korea and died back here in the united states, it was about trying to release them, but the hope was that these talks, these talks about releasing americans in north korea would also lead to some kind of fuller dialogue. they did address the issue of poor relations between the u.s. and south korea. so, ambassador yun has met with his counterparts. he met with them in may, in oslo and in june in new york, and he's been, you know, they called this, and you might have heard this kind of diplomatic term before, the new york channel. it's been a long-established channel between the state department and the north korean --

is north korea different? >> when people advocate a preventative attack, they usually postulated that kim jong-un is crazy and we don't know what they'll do because we need to start a war to prevent a war. i don't think kim is crazy, nor was his father crazy. obviously, a terrible dictator, but he's not insane, he's not going to wake up some morning and start a war. when you ask people, how would he respond if we did a preventative attack, they usually say, he wouldn't respond because he knows the might of the u.s. military. it's like, that's a rational response. there seems to be a bit of a disconnect in thinking. we need to have a strong military, including missile defense systems to deter and defend, and if necessary, defeat a threat, but i think we can go down a longer path with pressure in sanctions and target the financial measures before result to military action. >> jon: bruce, thank you. >> melissa: a major development in the search for a driver accused of deliberately slamming his car into a group of

we will continue the conversation on the latest from north korea and the threats from north korea and u.s. reaction. we are joined by patrick cronin, with the center for a new american security, the asia-pacific security program's senior director. joining us from yonsei university in seoul, south korea, associate professor john delury, associate professor in chinese studies. thank you for being with us this morning. professor guillory -- professor delury, i will start with you. i asked dana williams how things are in guam. what is the mood in seoul in general? hello, thank you for having me. it is interesting to hear that report from guam. there are some similarities in south korea. if you showed up, you would not sign in thetect any united states or globally. there is so much attention now to north korea pay the fact that office, wellin my within artillery range -- we are in the northern part of seoul. it has been some a quiet on campus, but there are no drills. we are not being told how to duck and cover. at this point, there is certainly no outward sign. when you talk people, there

we continue to give north korea an out, to give north korea the option to stop what they're doing. we have to see what they're going to do with that. >> let's go straight to nbc's kelly o'donnell who is in bridge water, new jersey. how significant is this for the white house? >> reporter: good morning. confronting north korea and containing their nuclear ambitions is a major priority for the trump administration trying to stop the belligerent stand of the young dictator. the u.s. led a mission at the u.n. and got the world to act. >> reporter: a stern new message for north korea. a saturday session at the u.n.'s where the u.s. led the way. >> translator: for those in favor of the draft resolution -- >> reporter: winning support with russia and china on board to tighten economic screws on the kim jong-un regime. >> it will give the north korean leadership a taste of the deprivation it has inflicted on the north korean people. >> reporter: the price of provocation for testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles. the sanctions ban a range of exports from coal to seafood valued at $

north korea is a nuclear power. they are now getting closer and closer, if not have already embraced and realized a capability of launching a nuke from sites in north korea that could potentially hit the united states and certainly have always been able to hit the southern portion of the peninsula. that's what ties us all together and, really, starts to limit the number of options, but increases the requirement all of those elements of power, diplomatic element, information's mial mil and economic have to gal vvaniz or we are closer to a military-only resolution. kim jong-un is rational. very rational. homicidal but not suicidal. if he were to launch or completely ignore any external end fretreaties in terms how th might try to embrace having a nuclear north korea, but wracked in protocols being a part of that. it he's not a place in to that he becomes suicidal. >> rick francona, we've seen at least two intercontinental ballistic missile tests launched by north korea with capability to hit los angeles, maybe chicago

and north korea probably knows that. and i think that they are probably responding in these ways, they feel like they have, to but i'm not sure we're to the that point that we need to panic. liz: katie, to your point there is likely no other country in world nike nort nok like north korea the scale how they brutalize their own people, you say, you would like to see that balance in reporting out there. >> yes, we're not seeing the viciousness or acknowledgment of the severity of the threats from north korea. we're only -- if you look at pool reporting from white house today we're asking questions of the president if he is concerned about the critics of hi rhetoric, is that really the concern when we have someone with nuclear weapons, threatening to kill civilian in guam, and has allegedly been able to min miniaturize a nuclear weapon, why is question about how trump feels about critics who are upset about his rhetoric, rather than why is north korea behaving this way, and why have we put up with this for so long. liz: goo

military capabilities and the risk north korea would be taking if it attacked. >> he said north korea must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons. the dprk should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people. meantime, rex tillerson stressed diplomacy, saying he thought the president just wanted to be clear to the north korean regime in order to avoid any miscalculation on their part. >> those reassurances seem to clash with the president's "fire and fury" statements. "my first job as president was to make our nuclear arsenal stronger than ever before." >> and "hopeful we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world." he added that exclamation point. today president trump meets the vice president for lunch at mr. trump's new jersey golf club. >>> rises tensions with north korea is finally breaking wall street's calm. a response to the president's warning to north korea and its then-threat to guam. for months,

and north korea. a special representative for north korea, joseph yune, had been meeting with north korean officials for the last several months. they were supposed to meet in february, but then kim jong-un's brother was killed in malaysia. those talks have been ongoing, wolf, primarily about the release of americans but also in the sense of, let's try and get our relationship back on track. we understand those talks have continued. joe yune met in oslo with some counterparts at the north korean foreign ministry and also the north korean ambassador to the united nations. so i think it's important for viewers to remember that although the rhetoric is very hot between the u.s. and north korea, there's still diplomatic back channels. we call it, for years, the new york channel. because it goes through the united nations. the new york north korean mission to the united nations. i wouldn't say they're very productive in terms of helping the relationship, but those channels still exist and the hope is that

they view north korea as an aggressor. at least the rhetoric we are seeinging now is back to what we are used to seeing and not the detailed plan near guam that we saw a couple days ago. >> it has not gone away. it is under review by kim jong-un. i take your point. there is news that has to involve china where you are and russia that has just cross zed. russia's foreign minister is working with china on a double freezing plan to prevent u.s./north korean conflict. they quote lavrov saving the u.s. should end the joint military drills because the one who is stronger and smarter must take the first step away from the dangerous line. what does that mean? >> reporter: well, this is something we have heard from russia and china many times before. every august, every april, there are joint military drills. china and russia will call for the suspension of the drills because they say the military exercises enrage pyongyang and often the months of august, we have seen missile launches and military force. you have the russian foreig

and showdown with north korea. none of it a laughing matter unless of course you're a late night comic. political satire is booming these days. the folks at "saturday night live" are bringing their popular weekend update to primetime tonight. i stopped by with a preview with its stars. >> it's weekend update. >> they are two breakout stars of political satire whose long summer off has been a season of missed opportunities. you guys missed scaramucci? >> we did. >> yes. that's like missing christmas or something. >> it feels like you showed up late to a concert and oh, man they brought out kanye. you're like what? yeah, he did one song and left. it was amazing. i was just going to get popcorn. >> the fake news. >> weekend update, a "saturday night live" staple has built plenty of careers and skewered plenty of presidents along the way. >> president clinton will be moving out the white house and expected to be the first president in history to not get his security deposit back. >> reporter: but the trump era has been

with north korea. this is absurd. >> you're talking about incomprehensible death and destruction. it would be apocalyptic. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> good morning, welcome to your "new day." chris is off this morning. bill we're joir joins me. up first, north korea threatening to attack the u.s. territory of guam, hope to one of america's air force bases in response to u.s. bombers flying over the korean peninsula. this comes after president trump's extraordinary warning to

they will undoubtedly be talking about north korea. it's unclear if we'll hear publicly from the president today, but yesterday he took more than 30 questions. joe johns reports. >> i'm very disappointed in mitch, but if he gets these bills passed, i'll be very happy with him. >> reporter: president trump ramping up his criticism of senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, suggesting he may want the top republican to step aside if he doesn't deliver on the president's agenda. >> he doesn't get them done, then you can ask me that question. >> reporter: the stunning public spat escalating after the two leaders exchanged jabs in recent days over the failure of the gop effort to repeal and replace obamacare. >> our new president of course has not been in this line of work before. and i think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process. >> they should have had this last one done. they lost by one vote. for a thing like that to happen is a disgrace. >> reporter: president trump delivering harsh words f

up to north korea. here he is. >> i can tell you that based on not only their presentations but actually intelligence and evidence that we've seen, china has done more on sanctions implementation than they have on some of the previous u.n. security council sanctions. >> it's pretty tepid, more than on some of the previous rounds. the facts are painful here. chin china's trade with north korea this year just in the first quarter was up 35%. imports up 18%. that's china's own trade data, what they admit to. during this time, north korea's arsenal got bigger and bigger. is part of this president obama's fault? >> look, erin, i think the truth of the matter is, in that statement you just showed from president obama went on to say that there's more that china can do in this area. and that is certainly the case. and frankly, what we're seeing from the current administration seems to be a push china towards that, to increase pressure on china to do more against the banks that china has that are continuing to d

north korea's security and well-being did not depend on nuclear weapons. they do not depend on far-reaching missiles. they do not depend on a myth of self-sufficient defiance of the wider world. to live in constant tension with the world cannot be in the interest of north korea's regime, let alone its people. mr. president, we have taken a step forward.ep we have spoken with unified voice that we are ready to act in an unprecedented way in response to north korea's reckless nuclear pursuits. every country must ensure that these measures are adhered to. every country must live up to our word. this time there's too much at stake. - we simply cannot afford to fail. thank you. >> i would like to thank the representative of the united kingdom and to give the floor now to the representative of france. you have the floor. [speaking french] >> translator: mr. president, france welcomes the unanimous adoption of resolution 2371, which strengthens the sanctions imposed by the united nations against north korea in the wake of a ballistic missile launchc which occurre

north korea makes a general threat. north korea makes a more specific threat to guam. the president says that will bring this other response from the u.s. that's a dangerous place to be in a highly volatile situation. that's one point i would make. he certainly touched on russia a number of times but on iran, we haven't talked about iran in a while, the president indicated a major policy change. he said repeatedly iran is not in compliance with the nuclear de deal. he said not with the spirit of the deal but he said multiple times not in compliance. that's something to watch going forward. >> he said we have some time. >> it was only within the past week or two that the secretary of state, rex tillerson, signed a document saying iran was in fact in compliance with the nuclear deal. every 90 days the u.s. has to certify and they certified that iran was in compliance and the president said iran is not in compliance. >> the deal is the deal and the deal prevents them from achieving nuclear weapons capability and they are complying. it's the iae that is actually determinin

prefers a diplomatic solution to the crisis in north korea. but you said that that diplomatic and economic efforts and pressure were, quote, backed by a credible military option. in recent days, steve bannon called the diplomatic and economic ratcheting up of tensions with north korea a sideshow. he said there is no military solution and that the real issue is an economic war with china. does this reflect some kind of new opinion by the administration? or was he speaking for himself? and are you afraid that comments like this might dilute the credible military deterrence backing your diplomatic and economic efforts? thank you. sec. tillerson: i don't really have a comment on what mr. bannon's remarks were in that particular interview. i read those. i think we have been quite clear as to what the policy and the posture toward north korea is. and i think secretary mattis and i, in that op-ed, wanted to inform, as best we were able to do, inform the american people first, but also inform our important friends and allies as to what our approach is

and north korea. and north korea is so over time they felt the u.s. backed off on that promise and in you know the agreement finally you know came apart during the bush administration for actually for other reasons but the north koreans believe very strongly that the u.s. did not fulfill its part of the bargain to dropping a hostile policy so they still stay on this issue and say you know they will negotiate they may not you know negotiate an end to their weapons but they're willing to talk about it new denuclearization and. scaling the other missile program but they want the u.s. hostile policy to be ended and the parameters of that hostility that needs to be ended are what not while i think the war games they're talking war games or talking sanctions or talking economic warfare i mean the you know the north korea at the trading with the enemy you know that they've been under. under sanctions u.s. sanctions in big trade banning trade with them you know for decades and they would like to and they would like to and that so they see this as overall endi

our top stories: defiance from north korea. it says new sanctions won't stop it developing nuclear weapons. embracing the strongmen. the american secretary of state meets philippine president duterte before heading off to greet thailand's military rulers. venezuela's opposition—controlled parliament refuses to recognise president maduro‘s sacking of the country's chief prosecutor. and 200 days since donald trump took office, business people in wisconsin tell us they need more migrant workers not fewer. north korea's state news agency has said america will "pay the price" a thousand times over, for what it calls the "crime" of drafting new un sanctions against pyongyang's missile and nuclear weapons programme. the un security council voted unanimously at the weekend for new sanctions, which aim to reduce north korean export revenues by a third. at a summit in manila, a spokesman for the regime sought to blame the us for the rising tensions. translation: is our nuclear possession a threat to the world orjust a threat to the u

he explained north korea's motivation. i think history is important when looking at the ideological goals. since 19118, when north korea was founded, they wanted to reunify the peninsula and we still need to think of north korea having that goal in mind and they are playing the long game, essentially you're not going to outdo north korea in terms of hyperbole. looking at the history of north korea and their view of the us, are they likely to back down? how do they see the united states? they see the united states as their eternal enemy and if you look at recent reports in the news, north korea is the one that is rejecting dialogue. they see themselves as having leverage over the united states right now with the news coming out that they have been able to miniaturise a nuclear warhead and they now have a very significant nuclear arsenal, they really have the upper hand over the united states. i don't think trump's fiery rhetoric is doing much good and it could actually turn into a very destructive war that could deeply impa

korea, preparing for all the possibilities of war with north korea from the south to the north or defending an attack from the north to the south suddenly unfortunately it seems frighteningly real. >> i agree with you he will not and does not want to be the president to allow north korea to launch a nuclear attack against the united states. the question is how does he stop it? is he willing to strike preemptively against north korea with all those implications? and he's also the first president we've had since ut talked about bill clinton in '94 that north korea ignored, when north korea put out the rhetoric about engulfing in flames and he's the first to respond with comment as strong as with fire and fury. the problem is we've had a lot of thanksgiving happening and history is speeding forward much more quickly than donald trump would have expected, than a lot of our generals would have expected. things are happening faster out of north korea with the development of these weapons that we would have expected. barack obama, when they were sitting and talking during the transition for those

won't be pushed around by north korea. fox news confirming a potentially major advance in that country's nuclear program amid a new threat from pyongyang aimed at guam. these are quickly moving developments as we'll take you through all of them today. serious stuff here. i'm bill hemmer. welcome toremarkon his way to guam, the island north korea is considering an attack on. the secretary said he thought of no change in plans on that itinerary. he believes there is no imminent threat. >> i think americans should sleep well at night, have no concerns about this particular rhetoric of the last few days. i think the president again as commander-in-chief felt it necessary to issue a strong statement directly to north korea but i think what the president was just reaffirming is the united states has the capability to fully defend itself from any attack and defend our allies and we'll do so. so the american people should sleep well at night. >> democrats met president trump's comments with criticism saying they were reckless, bom

north korea is a serious threat to the region but not to the united states not scared of of north korea i'm not scared but i'm scared of who our leaders are in many countries and how they're behaving they're not asleep behaving in the interest of of the people fully is becoming more of a birth votto and any time you're dealing with an a country that's led by your irrational dictator i think you know what you do appear for the worst yes pretty threatening and we responded in a threatening way that scary that you point to north korea on this map. there no that's that's siberia ok. there that's that's still siberia. that's that's southeast asia that's you know that's like vietnam. man mark there you go yeah that that's that's north i knew that she would get it and you find north korea on this map of the world her all that's australia actual oh well north korea. southeast asia that's cambodia that's. ok so it's here that's australia you're someone that's saudi arabia.

north korean workers eighty percent of commerce goes into north korea from china eighty percent this sanctions affect a third of their yearly revenue you know north korea can really be strangled by china and china wants to so if china and russia feel that you know we're going at it alone that is not going to help our policy there to try to control north korea so i don't see the plus in these threats were we getting something in return from these president's threats i don't see it. what about defusing this situation what's the remedy at this point and what would you consider a last ditch effort to retrieve this. i think that secretary tillerson put out something in variation that might work he basically said all right north korea let's talk let's have a dialogue which we've not offered north korea before but in return you've got to halt your missile activity maybe for a short period of time let's see if there's common ground and then we proceed into heavier negotiations i think that is a way out for both sides. the worry that i've had with past administrations and by the way bush clin

it's in defense of what was coming out of north korea. it's not like he randomly said i'm going to pick a fight with north korea. >> but john kelly didn't know about the language -- >> i think the president has the ability and the right to clearly state a message and people are looking at two words and trying to make this actually that those words somehow only meant we had a nuclear option which i don't think is accurate. i think fire and fury means the united states of america is not going to be bullied by a guy with nuclear weapons that can reach half of the united states of america. if you live in hawaii, you have a 20-minute warning -- >> we get the urgency of what this fire and fury suggests that is non-mill tiristic? >> one, i would say ask iran. they saw the fire and fury solely through cyberattacks. no one was talking about a red button. guess what? we screwed their program up, brought them back from what we think is literally years from the brink, that's fire and fury, yes, using cyber warfare. the president's point was not so mu

north korea but you think that the actual dispute is not with north korea. no i don't think so in fact this missile defense system that the united states is called fad that is us has recently deployed in some jews on the korean mainland its radar has a two thousand kilometer viewing capability which means it will see into china and russia so it's really not about north korea it's about again in circling china and russia with military capability technically these missile defense systems that are key elements in u.s. for a strike attack planning in fact every year at the u.s. space command they have a annual war game a computer wargame where they practice a first strike attack on russia and china but after the u.s. launches that strike. those two countries try to fire their remaining rig nuclear retaliatory capability at the u.s. in response and it is at that point that the u.s. uses this so-called missile defense shield to try to pick off russian and chinese retaliatory capability and or the u.s. war gaming nuclear first strike and now setting in motion the i

and north korea. ben tracy has that. >> reporter: south korea's president says he will now allow the u.s. to fully deploy the antiballistic missile system known as thaad in his country. it comes as he is also calling for a complete overhaul of south korea's military. president trump's "fire and fury" comments led to a large protest march in north korea orchestrated by the regime. in japan, trump's words came on the anniversary of the american atomic bomb in nagasaki, a reminder of what's at stake. japan's lawmakers are pushing for new weapons that could allow it to launch a preemptive strike on north korea. china is warning both kim jong- un's regime and the u.s. to tone down the rhetoric. in a statement to cbs news, china's foreign ministry called the situation "highly sensitive," and that all sides "should stop provoking each other." china does not want north korea th have nuclear weapons but says the problem should be solved diplomatically. it fears a war in the korean peninsula could lead to a ref

china wants north korea to remain sta ble china wants north korea to remain stable for a lot of those reasons. as far as what the us can do next, basically, the us basically has two try to contain north korea as it is, 01’ try to contain north korea as it is, or try to work towards some sort of negotiated agreement on the north korean missile programme. —— to try to contain. the latter is very difficult. just briefly, do you think that the north korean regime does actually expect this to come to war, nuclear or otherwise?” does actually expect this to come to war, nuclear or otherwise? i think that the north korean regime definitely hopes that it does not. probably more so than we, the united states, do. but they have been preparing for such an eventuality. 0ver preparing for such an eventuality. over the past couple of years, we have seen them change up the types of missile tests that they do. and in some ways, it does look as though they are preparing their missile forces for fighting a nuclear war. well, we will be talking to you again, i should suspect. shea cotton, thank

korea by saying if the united states conducts a first strike on north korea, they'll have china to deal with, as well. but if the north koreans conduct a first strike, they are on their own. and i think the possibility for mezcis m miscalculation is now reduced. if they hit american soil, they'll be in big trouble. >> we've heard about this nuclear threat from north korea for years. the report this week suggested it had the capabilities to equip it with an icbm with weapons. we thought it'd be at least a year away. what has happened? >> first of all, trying to determine what's going on technologically in north korea is extremely difficult to do. we have a lot more information on their conventional capability on the ground, the number of troops and so on. but with respect to delivering a nuclear weapon with a missile, just having a miniaturized weapon and just having a missile that can reach american soil is not enough to ha. they have to meet the two. the triggering has to be correct. the warhead has to be able to survive re-entry. we're not sure they have the capability to do that. the

let's start with north korea. he said, if they attack guam, it is not a threat, it is a statement of fact that the u.s. will respond. how do you see us respond something. >> it would be with devastating force. guam is american territory. whether it's guam or california, that would have to be the response. obviously his intention is to say don't even think about it. when you combine what he said there with the beginning of his statement about the national security issues that have been discussed, venezuela, north korea, the middle east and that he made a lot of decisions, afghanistan, i think this was a pretty significant effort to wrap up a lot of these issues. >> liz: you're quite familiar with the united nations and how it works or doesn't work. in the wake of the u.n. security council push by the united states to pass sanctions unanimously against russia, he was finally asked what did he think of russia's response, which was to basically ban 750 u.s. diplomats and his response was, i want to thank putin for exp

to remember, north korea gets strength from communist china. in the service were ething years ago, we fighting communist china in communist e fought china in korea and as long as china is backing that little criminal and extortion, problem is never going to go away. what you got to do is go after and all the na stuff that we buy from them. well, i think the problem is probably wider than china and reported recently that north orea probably got assistance from factories inside the was part of had -- the soviet's weapons complex. they have been getting a number of om different sources and technical assistance probably from russian ukrainian scientists who lost livelihood after soviet union and have themselves out to iran, north i think you are right when you say that china has been facilitating north korea, but a number of other countries have, as well. west virginia, you're on with our guest, michael dobbs, go ahead. morning, america crazy stuff ch of here. united states and allies does practices off the shore of korea, what do you think they ar

what are the chances you think north korea would launch a nuclear strike against the u.s. >> north korea developed its program to fend off conventional conflict on the korean peninsula. they're aware of the military supporty of the united states. they developed this program to throe another calculation of any idea of removing the kim regime through military intervention. they fdesigned it to fend off a invasion they're not going to use it unless they feel they're being invaded. >> can you tell us how they're getting their materials. >> the weapons program started a while back. if we go back to the original, older piece of the program they got their first ballistic missiles from the russians in the '70s. and it was then a series of networks that went from pack stan to iran that developed the program to where it is today. >> we've seen the rhetoric president trump has said military solutions are locked and loaded. what's your reaction to his warning that the u.s. is ready to use military action. >> that is expected. coming out of the president's office that is something i think we're all s

if north korea invades the united states. reporter: this has gone from what appears to be a working vacation to almost crisis management as we learn fro

we'll handle north korea. we're going to be able to handle north korea. it will be handled. we handle everything. >> then there is this. perhaps the most sobering quote of the evening came during an interview with a nuclear expert, the head of a global security foundation. he was interviewed on "the rachel maddow program" earlier tonight. >> the seriousness of this situation cannot be overestimated. not because they could hit us in a bolt out of blue attack that could take out los angeles or seattle. no, what you're worried about is that you have two insecure, inexperienced, impulsive leaders in control of a vast amount of destructive force squaring off in the most heavily militarized area on earth. what is trump going to do now you? >> that got our attention for good reason. and with that, let's bring in tonight's starting panel. andrea mitchell, retired four-star u.s. army general, barry mccaffrey, and our military general, malcolm nance. a 35 year intelligence veteran including with special operations and homeland security, also happens to be an msnbc analyst. andrea, you

forces to go north, the outcome of that would be devastating to north korea. that regime would be gone. >> general marks, i want to bring in wesley clark and general hurtling. general hurtling, can you explain the difficulty of the terrain in this area of north korea, how tough it is to operate in? >> a couple things. what spider was just talking about is a war plan with multiple contingencies. when i was much younger as a colonel, our job was to come from ft. lewis, washington, to pusan, that small city on the bottom of the maps, unload our tanks and bradleys and travel up to the dmz. what i'll tell you in that, we were planning exercises where we were going up with all our logistics and tanks and artillery, while the south koreans were withdrawing. medical evacuation was occurring. it was an exercise, but we practiced that. then the first time i went to korea as a brigade commander, i was in a helicopter going from pusan to near seoul, and i looked out at the terrain, and i said my lord, how do we fight in this because of what spider just described in terms

korea has responded as well, leading to somewhat of a tit for tat between new jersey and north korea. president trump initially promised fire and fury if kim jong-un continued his threats and later said that statement may not have been tough enough. yesterday he again went round forth round with reporters and said this about the north korean leader. >> and if he utters one threat in the form of an overt threat which by the way he has been uttering for years and his family has been uttering for years, or if he does anything with respect to guam or any place else that's an american territory or an american ally, eltruly regret it. and elregret it fast. >> no easing of tensions there. what we've seen here is a number of strategic shifts by the president that have been notable to reporters who have been following him. in the last few days he's taken at least 50 questions from press who have been following him around here in new jersey. that's a huge shift from past trips with the president where he hasn't taken questions. additionally, on that call with the chinese president xi jinping,

north korea has threatened guam. they've threatened the mainland of the united states countless times with nuclear annihilation but this statement is different. what i read here is a confidence on the part of the north koreans. either confidence or really blufr i bluffi bluffing. they lay out exactly what missile, a range to strike guam, go 2,100 miles, less than 20 miles from the homeland, 60,000-plus u.s. citizens and thousands more tourists. andersen air force base. naval base guam. north korea saying they'd fly the missile up over japan, bring it down in a specific flight path, and there are questions about whether north korea has the capability to do this. we saw them launch four missiles simultaneousy earlier this year. three landed very close to japan, but to say, on paper -- again, just a statement right now. they haven't pulled this off yet -- to say on paper they can do this is noteworthy and also just the personal insults against president trump. essentially saying they don't take him seriously. saying he