north korean with a foreign policy writer. then, former defense undersecretary and the former ambassador to south korea. unites military remains an essential tool of american power. what must be used for security hallenges today. >> secretary chuck hagel yesterday while most of this morning's "washington journal" will be devoted to looking at north korea. we want to start off a little more broadly and get your views

on the role of the u.s. military worldwide. here is the "new york times" article reporting on defense cretary hagel's speech yesterday. budget con strants forcing an overhaul in military operations, hagel says. facing inevitable steep cuts in military spending even as globalt threats remain high. said wednesday that he is being forced to consider fundamental changes in how the pentagon

defends american interests and conducts its daily business. in his first major address as secretary -- addressing an audience, mr. hagel offered no specific cancellations, trims or shifts in pentagon spending accounts,

>> host: again, role of the u.s. military worldwide is our topic this morning. here's a little bit more from defense secretary hagel. >> in a decade where our country has grown we'rey of war and skeptical of foreign entanglements, questions arise about the merits of america's role in the world. america's global leadership. america does not have the luxury of retrenchment. we have too many global interests at stake. including our security, prosperity, and our future.

if we refuse to lead, something, someone, will fill the vacuum. host: 202 is the area code for ll of our numbers. you can see the email address if you would like to see an email. lot of facebook chatter. here are some comments we've been receiving. eter says --

host: no more nation building, the ly washington headed warnings of the founding fathers for once. host: those are some of the comments on our facebook page. back to the "new york times" article this morning, mr. hagel, who earned two purple hearts in

vietnam spoke with caution about the use of military force in advancing the nation's agenda and in tones set by mr. obama. in a clear criticism of some past american national security choices, but with no specific decisions mentioned, mr. hagel said "we have made mistakes and physical clations with our great power. with perhaps both american and foreign audiences in mind, mr. hagel none the was unwaivering in the active overseas role for the u.s. despite physical pressures. lead story this morning in "u.s.a. today," one of the stories in "u.s.a. today," proposing major spending changes. here's a bit of that harl.

hagel's, former defense secretary robert gates killed of s for the army's suite new ground-combat vehicles and he marines landing craft and personnel costs have continued to rise at unsustainable level ts. harrison has noted that personnel costs are growing so fast they will consume the entire pentagon budget by 2039. that's just a little bit from "u.s.a. today" this morning. role of the u.s. military worldwide is our topic, and james in winter haven, florida, independent line, you're first up. james, good morning. caller: good morning to you, sir. host: please go ahead. caller: i'm curious, i'm an

independent and have been for decades. and, i don't really know anybody that, at least that i speak with, is not amazed by the way that the spending is handled in washington. i mean, i don't understand how a 2% cut in a 10% increase can cause such havoc as they're playing it out in the media. and also don't understand how the white house could spend countless millions on frivolous vacations, rock shows, having celebrities put on private performances, just to squandering of our tax paying money beyond belief, and it just doesn't add up. host: james, that said, what do you think the role of the u.s. military should be worldwide? caller: well, i think it should

e more in an education role. i think it -- i don't think that we should be having bases everywhere, spending money like crazy. i think the efficiency of our military could be greatly approved with just common sense, nd i think the role of instructor or a coach or that type of role would be better than actually taking it on ourselves, and i think that our allies, why would they get in and put in their blood and treasure, if somebody else is doing it for them. host: that was james in florida. this is a recent pole that was done by gallop. republicans put more emphasis on the u.s. being number one militarily. republicans, 80%, are much more likely than democrats, 48%, to say it is important that the u.s. be number one in the world

militarily. independents view 62%, reflect americans views overall. this was a poll taken in february of this year. robert, pete ersburg, virginia, independent line. hi, robert. caller: good morning. well, my thoughts on the military is this, i think that we should bring our troops back ome from over there, afghanistan, all the money that's been spent over there seems to be a lot wasted evidently and when we leave there's not going to be much accomplished, i don't think. there are going to be a lot of troops, they're in for two years or maybe some are in longer. you got to have something for them to do. let's put them on the border down there, you know, and let them do that. and then i think we could use them to take away the big

corporations up there on wall street, and the oil companies. we could take over the oil companies and use the military to run that. and i think we could see the economy pick up and the blue collar workers in this country would have a fair chance. host: robert, you think some of our overseas military should be brought home? caller: oh, i think at least 60%-70% should. all those places in germany, north korea, south korea, you know, we've got quite a few people over there and look at what's going on now. something with north korea, it's not going to be people that's needed on the ground, it's going to be missiles and air planes and such. yeah, i think for the economy's sake we need to with draw, dissipate all of our military from around the world. have a good morning. host: thanks for calling in. mark is a democrat from new york city. caller: hi, i'm actually in new city new york. thank you for c-span, i'm an

avid watcher. this is a subject that i've been talking about for many years. the united states is the world's policeman, and i'm tired of my taxpayer dollars going to fight foreign wars that are unnecessary. it's not my job as an american to protect everybody all over the world. we can do much better with helping people, with humanitarian aid, and you know, guys like the gentleman from florida saying we need to cut back on the president's vacations and rock concerts, that's not going to save anything. how about the billions the pentagon spent because north korea is ramping up threats. they don't ask us about that. it's just unbelievable. they want to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, to help american citizens and they want to spend more money to help afghanis, iraqis, whoever is the enemy so that's my comment for

today, and thanks for c-span. wikipedia, -- from which compares them all around the world, here's the u.s., about 1.4 million active members of the armed forces, 850,000 or so in reserve. total 2.291 million. hat's total per capita of 7.3. his compares to china at 2.285 million active with several other categories. now, the koreas which will be the focus of our program the rest of the morning, here's south korea.

they currently have 876,000 active duty troops, -- they have 87,000 active duty troops. finally here is north korea's armed forces. currently 1.1 million in niform, 8.2 million reserves d that adds up to a total of 386.7 per capita. tim is a republican in arlington heights, illinois. tim, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think the role of the u.s. military worldwide should be? caller: our military should stay in military, except for navy which should keep our shipping

lanes open. we could use the army on protecting our northern and southern borders. host: as a republican, is it important to you like we showed in that poll earlier to have the world's biggest or strongest military? caller: we do now. it doesn't need to be as big as it is. we could reduce it a little. we have strike forces, and all kinds of weapons that are just out of this world. host: thanks for calling in this morning. back to our facebook page, some more comments. if you can't get through on the phone lines you can go to facebook or to twitter.

host: that's just a little bit from facebook. 202 is the area code for the numbers. the role of the u.s. military worldwide, given defense secretary hagel's speech yesterday and potential sequester cuts and the threat of north korea and other hot spots. left lead this morning in the "washington post." more cuts ahead for the

pentagon. little more from this story -- that's just a little bit from "the washington post" this morning. now north korea will be our topic as we move through this morning's "washington journal." josh rogan of foreign policy will be on here, along with the former assistant secretary of defense.

and thomas hubbard who served as ambassador to south korea during the george bush administration will also be out here as we continue this conversation. this is the editorial from this morning's "new york times" regarding north korea. it's north korea, again. new york times" writes --

that's the "new york times" this morning. joe is a republican in washington, d.c. joe, you're on the washington journal. >> yeah, my statement is you need to fall back on what george washington's suggestions were, and with the light of recent events with gun control, we're getting away from the idea of what the second amendment truly was about. that's well organized militia. there's nobody at home protecting us right here in the united states. i think they should be used in a more constructive manner to protect the united states, just like they did during world war ii where they realized they had to get involved. we don't have to get involved in all of these other affairs. it's just not necessary. host: eric's a democrat in

detroit. eric, please go ahead. caller: yeah, i'm listening to the comments that a lot of people are making this morning. i think if people were more informed, or they had more facts and regard for what's really going on, both around the world and here at home, that they would probably come to some very different conclusions. because president obama shows great restraint, and the thing that he tried to do for our country, but it's republicans that are keeping him from entering a lot of things that could make us a stronger country and a much more cohesive country. host: such as what? caller: such as he tries to get the facts before he does anything abroad or here at home. and he tries to implement programs that would stimulate the economy, but it seems like a lot of the republican senators act like they're the president and they really don't give him

the respect that he deserves. host: caller from wichita, independent line. hello. ahmad? caller: yes, yes, i have a little comment. man, i've been in the military, i've been around the world in the military. here's the question, no country sacrosanct. america has the same kind of programs that they have all over the world, what if the other countries in the world do the things america does to them, such as flying drones over nebraska and killing citizens in america. we all know what would happen, don't we? host: so that said, should in your view, does the u.s. military abroad serve a good purpose?

>> in some respects, again, it's kind of like everything else in the creation. the thing is is we have good and we have bad. there are good policies that america does as far as some foreign aid, but there are other things which is frankly abhorrent which wouldn't be toll lated by any sovereign nation. host: where have you served, ahmad? caller: well, i've served in vietnam and cambodia and laos and some in tokyo. host: thank you for calling in this morning. calvin is on our republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i'm a retired military, been out of the military for about 27 years, i spent 13 years in europe, and i was also a vietnam vet. and what i feel is that military worldwide should be that we should focus our attention mainly on the -- and let some of these countries that we go in

and support like germany and england, i think sometimes people forget -- they need to step up and try to defend some of their own shores. and have the u.s. take care of the people here in the united states, and a climate and everybody's in agreement on both sides of the aisle whether democrat or republican. to support various actions throughout the world. host: calvin, were you career military? caller: yes, i was. host: are you associated with, what is it, the national army college in carlisle? caller: that's where it is now. defense king for the a agency in pennsylvania. host: when you served abroad, have you felt useful?

caller: oh, very much so, very much so. a joy to work alongside some of these other nations and we learn from each other. but we don't have to have such a large presence in some of these areas that we were before. and it's not, i don't think it's a harm to be in these countries, but if we have to look in our economy today and back away, we should focus more on the united ates, like i said, step in when asked or proved there in our government. host: thank you for making your comments this morning. first portion of the "washington journal," we're looking at the role of the u.s. military worldwide given what's happening in north korea. the rest of our program will be soly focused on what's happening in north korea. john is a democrat in missouri. john, good morning, you're on.

ller: well, what we're doing and korea, and the other countries is mainly just making sure everybody's safe. but if north korea comes across the border and threatens our do it like name, like we did before. that's all i have to say. host: thank you. here are some of our twites mments this morning --

pam is an independent in maine. pam, good morning. what are your comments this morning? caller: hi, yeah, one thing that people don't talk about when they're talking about north korea is this agreement between clinton and north korea back in 1994 i think, or 1996, i'm not sure. but that agreement was when north korea was building a and making fuel for them. we didn't like what they're i they were doing because that fuel could then be used for nuclear weapons. so the agreement was made between clinton and north korea that we would supply them with light water reactors, which were lead to nuclear weapon and north

korea agreed. and also that they would be supplied with oil for energy in the meantime until those light water reactors had been put in place. and they were supposed to be done in 2003 -- host: ok, pam, all this said, what's your conclusion? caller: that that we reanythinged on that agreement and north korea went ahead and decided to make a bomb. if we had lived up to our agreement we wouldn't be in this mess now and if we would stop playing war games over their territory, we wouldn't be in this mess now either, and no, i don't believe that our u.s. military should be operating all around the world. host: thank you, pam from maine. and this is henry, who is in the navy, and lives here in the suburbs, burke, virginia. hi, henry. caller: hello, good afternoon. just a follow up on what the previous caller said, and to the

larger question that you had, which is where should the united states military be, the united states military is where the american people wish for it to be. the fact of the matter is we did not conduct exercises over north korea's territory. we made exercises or conducted exercises alongside allies, both japan and south korea, over their territory and in their territory of waters. those alliances are based upon treaties that are confirmed by the united states senate, hence making them constitutional and the law of the land. these are choices made by the american people through their elected representatives, which the military then carries out as an act of foreign policy. and so, if the american people make a decision, they wish for their military to come home or they wish toing a gate those treaties and putting the word of the united states in question around the world and undermining our position, then that's a

choice the american people to make when they go to the ballot and elect their officials. host: henry, all that said when you served, where have you served by the way? have you served overseas? caller: i've served all over the world. in the 7th fleet, in the waters of the western pacific, in the central arabian gulf, in the mediterranean. i've been in for a while. host: what do you think when you're overseas? do you think you're valuable? caller: i absolutely think we're valuable. i see the difference we make in other people's lives. had great sacrifice to our own, to the time we spent away from our families. but i see the improvement we make in other people's lives. the rights that we bring to them, and i see general improvement of the fact of the matter is, the united states have not claimed territory in any of its wars. we do not fight wars of the conquests with one exception of the spanish american war, in

which we gave back cuba and set up conditions for the philippines to have their independence. all we ask and claim is generally the amount of territory required to bury or dead. the united states military goes as an act, in an attempt to liberate people. i know there's a great deal of cynicism after our experiences in iraq and afghanistan, but we're not there contrary to what some have said, you know, iraqi oil is not being pumped into american reservoirs here at home. we went there for a reason, we fulfilled the reason, and throw our elected representatives made decisions to with draw from those areas. again following the actions of the american people, and their decisions at the ballot box. but it's a great privilege to serve. host: have you served in korea at all? caller: no, no, i have not served in or on the territory of korea. i have been in the waters off of korea. host: what about afghanistan, very quickly, henry. do you think that the u.s. should be pulling out of there?

caller: that's a decision for the leadership of the united states. i'm a serving military officer. i don't make those decisions, but i will execute the orders if they're given. host: henry in burke, virginia, thank you for your time this morning. from kentucky, democrat. hi. caller: yes, how you doing? host: i'm good. caller: my opinion is, i'm a single mother and i feel like in order for me to continue to feel safe for me and my children by being a single mother is, i feel like our military does need to be the military around the world. nd as far as president's situation, i feel he does not have enough support from the republicans, or from the free world period. we got to back our president up and be there in order for us to succeed. because he has good views, people just don't want to give him chances. host: thank you for calling in, expressing your view this

morning. here is morrie's view, posted on next call comes from max, pennsylvania. max, good morning, what's your thought about the u.s. military role worldwide? caller: we have a role to protect u.s. interest and a role to protect partners in the pacific, like korea, like japan, who doesn't have a defense force that can stand up to some of the regional partners there. and i think we do that well and we play that role. we play a role in europe, with nato. there are allies there and we have an article five which is a mutual defense club in the nato treaty. operations with air

forces worldwide and it's very important to feel from international operations in effect, our economy, and our allies and our interests, and our humanitarian interests worldwide. host: max, are you associated with, what is it, the army college that's in carlisle? caller: it is the u.s. army war college. host: are you associated with that? caller: yes, i'm a student here. host: you're a student. caller: yes. host: have you thought at all about how we're perceived internationally? caller: i have thought about how we're perceived internationally, our part in the white house handles things fairly well. i know the number of international fellows that we have here at the war college, you know, they're all, you know,

given the opportunity to tour the united states, until they make close contact with the american people. so i know that we're reaching out. serving korea, going back to serving headquarters there, and, you know, i think that it's important to fulfill our obligations. host: did you see defense secretary hagel's speech yesterday? and if so, what did you think? caller: i listened to it on c-span and i thought it was a good speech and i'm looking forward to hearing more about what the plans are for the future. host: max in carlisle, pennsylvania, we appreciate your time this morning. phil is in port orange, florida, independent line. caller: good morning, peter. how are you? host: i'm good. caller: oh, good. i think what we have to do here is follow the money. what do we got, about 50 cents on every tax dollar related to

the military, somehow. there's a great new video out, peter that's on the internet, about 45 minutes long. you can youtube search it or google video. t's all wars are bankers wars. and i want to back that up with president eisenhower's talk, his farewell address in 1961, talking, warning about the military industrial complex. i think we need to look at who benefits from these wars. he had hese generals, said that the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders, that is easy. all you have to do is tell them

they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. it works the same in any country. and i really think we have to look into the reason we're gwynn for the wars. look at 9/11, for crying out loud. we've got 12 years of insane war making around the world, reckless spending, and there's enough holes in the 9/11 story to drive world trade center building 7 through with plenty of room to spare -- host: all right, that's phil in port orange, florida giving his view. lead story this morning in "u.s.a. today," north korea drives u.s. to speed up plans. north korea's increased belligerence is prompting the pentagon to celebrate its expanded military presence in asia, a shift underway for the past year to counter china's

growing power in the region. on wednesday, the pentagon announced its intent to sell upgrades to the military in south korea for 60 f-15 fighters and plan to move a missile defense system to guam. that follows bombers and warships in the past days. the build-up reflects a long-term pivot to asia by the obama administration as it withdrawals troops from fghanistan and its war in iraq recedes into history.

host: patrick, thanks for holing, please go ahead with your comments.

military ll, the u.s. role sets a standard of national abuse that has never been rivaled by any country in the istory of the world. as america witnesses a national provocation by our people, you have to understand, my father was the director of the united states air force. before he passed away he said it's astonishing the police state that the united states is nationally becoming. now just imagine for one second, you live in virginia beach and all of the sudden, a hostile ation decides to do live military exercises in chesapeake bay, and to massively disrupt and pushing operations

you to the point where you have no way but to respond. the american people have to stop this. this is an aberration of our founding fathers. this has absolutely nothing to do with national security and the american people set the stan guard globally for forced behavior and allowing our politicians to provoke any regime across the globe in this factor. and we've got to stop this now! host: justin, nottingham, maryland, independent line, justin, you're on the "washington journal." caller: well, first of all that previous caller, i don't think the founding fathers were dealing with nukes, so that's my response to him. just for military role worldwide, pretty much just our presence is our role. just like the game risk, you don't all your military in one basket. so, it's better to have it spread out through the national, and worldwide map, just to be

there if something happens, such as north korea, iraq, iran, afghanistan. the fact that we haven't responded to north korea baffles me. the fact that we went into iraq on simply pictures of w.m.d.'s just to go in there on pictures, and the fact that kim jong un is pretty much threatened us for the past three weeks, daily, it just baffles me how we haven't responded to that yet. and we're playing into his tricks. that's ridiculous to me. host: do we have an obligation to south korea? caller: my father was on the d.m.z., and there was no real war. i think we've had an obligation to south korea since all that happened. host: thank you for your time

this morning. a tweet -- host: doc in louisiana, what do you think? caller: it's amazing, apparently north korea has had a terrific growth spurt. remember when obama was running, told everybody that countries ike cuba, iraq, north korea, were just small countries. we had nothing to fear from

them. it's amazing how they change their mind with how the wind blows. host: that's doc in louisiana. by the way, from "u.s.a. today" recently is this chart, i want to show you these two things right here. north korea and south korea comparisons. total population of north korea, 24.7 million people. and south korea, nearly 50 million people in their population. you you can see here by the map how close seoul, 20 minutes from the d.m.z. is to north korea. its population nearly 10 million eople. zach in sharon, connecticut on our republican line.

zach, what do you think about the role of the u.s. military worldwide? caller: well, i think as much as everybody doesn't want to look at it, the united states at this point is pretty much left with the same political and military position as great britain was back when it was really an empire. the whole thing about the navy at that point was that they needed to have that big navy, just because it had to exist. otherwise they had no political influence around the world. unfortunately the united states is kind of stuck in that same position. and that said, unfortunately though, one of the problems that we've had with south korea all this time is that we never really allowed them to develop in their own defense, so we've been stuck babysitting them for all those years. and, if that had never really happened that way, south korea would probably be taking care of itself by now. host: zach in connecticut. from "the denver post" this morning, u.s. military death in afghanistan stand at 2,063.

at least 1,0713 military service members have died in afghanistan as a result of hostile action. this is according to the military. grover in maywood, illinois, independent line and retired army. hi grover. caller: yes, good morning. my statement is that we cannot be the policemen of the world. host: can you turn down that volume on the tv, if you would. aller: let me turn it off. host: grover, we're going to have to get going here. caller: ok, i tried to turn the tv off. host: just talk in the phone. caller: i don't think that we should be the policemens of the world. we cannot fix everybody's problem, and everybody's not going to like us no matter what we do. we have lost more lives than any

other nation on planet earth trying to help people that hate us for no reason. they can't know anything about us because they don't interact with us. so as long as we continue to do hat, they will continue to affect us to do stupid stuff. thank you for your time. host: thank you for calling in this morning. very quickly, just want to show you some headlines, we're going to be moving on and concentrating our next three segments on north korea, u.s. policy towards north korea, the threat of north korea, et cetera. but just want to show you some other articles that are playing in the papers this morning, in case you're interested. this is in the "wall street journal." syria rebels seek lethal aid from europe and the mideast is the headlines. this is in the "new york times," obama pauses from fray to raise money for 2014.

the article's right down here. we'll show you the headline. he's out on the campaign trail, raising money, hoping to recapture the house for the democrats. this is the "pennsylvania post" this morning. fed officials cautiously discuss stimulus end game by the end of quit pumping money into the economy. and this is a picture of marty cooper. marty cooper helped to invent the cell phone. there's the original. he has been a guest on c-span, very interesting man, approaching 90 years old, but he was working for motorola at the time when he helped to invent the cell phone. two more articles, here's the lead in "the "chicago tribune" newspaper. black law makers hold key on state gay marriage bill is their lead story this morning.

finally, here's "the hart fort current" reflecting what happened in the house. historic vote on gun law. coming up next is josh rogan of foreign policy magazine. he'll be out here in a minute. then we'll talk to thomas hubbard as well who served as ambassador to south korea during the george w. bush administration. that's all what's coming up this morning on "washington journal." and we'll be right back. >> they had a very political marriage, much like john and abigail, so she would lobby in the halls of congress. now she was always very careful to say my husband believes this, and my husband advocates that. but, she herself was doing the

pitch. and one of her husband's opponents said that if james was ever elected president, she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. and she said if james and i are ever elected, i will neither keep house nor make butter. >> monday night, one of the most politically active and influential first ladies, sarah polk. we'll take your questions and comment ts by phone, facebook and twitter. first ladies, live monday night on c-span and c-span 3. so on c-span radio and cspan.org. >> people always like to ask me how did you come across this story? people always ask writers that. what happens a lot of times you find a news story while you're supposed to be working on something else which can be frustrating at times.

that's exactly what happened to me. i was doing a little internet research one day, and just look at this photo. this is the photo i came across. it was on a department of energy website. and they had put up a little newsletter for one of the department of energy facilities, and this newsletter was saying this month in oak ridge history. i love, because there seems to be the beautiful vanishing point at the end of the room, i looked at the machines with these dials and nobodies and i was so sucked into it. also, the women just looked so lovely and they've got the nice posture and the little 1940's hair-dos. i read the caption and it said these young women, many of them ruralchool graduates from tennessee were enriching uranium for the world's first atomic bomb, however they didn't know it at the time. >> one of the manhattan

project's secret cities, saturday, 11:00 a.m. on c-span 3. "washington journal" continues. host: now joining us is josh rogan who writes for foreign policy. is the current situation with north korea different than past situations with north korea? guest: right. so with the north korea situation and we see history repeating itself. the problem is every time it repeats itself it becomes a little bit more drass i think, more dramatic. the same pattern we've seen for the last two decades which is we ignore them, they become tired of being ignored, they threaten us with a lot of dangerous things and we bribe them. that's been the basic pattern over the years. the difference this time is that

there are less things we can do that we're willing to do to bribe them and less things that will get our attention. so the stakes get higher, the risks get higher, the danger gets higher. host: what's the importance to the north koreans about having unilateral discussions with the u.s.? guest: for 20 years, the goal was to build a six-party process. south korea and japan and the united states. in order to produce a comprehensive regional solution, the idea was america has limited influence over north korea. if we could harangue north korea into this six-party structure we could bring to bear the pressure of all five of them at once. north korea would rather deal with us directly because in the end that's easier for them, we're the ones who can make big

decisions quicker than having to run them by all of the other parties. and in fact, ever since about 2005 we have been having bilateral discussions with the north koreans. they're not well advertised, talked about a lot. the u.s. has been willing to reluctantly meet with the north koreans on a regular basis. the bottom line is that neither the six-party process or bilateral discussions have produced the breakthroughs. host: south korea, u.s., japan, and then north korea. host: right. host: do they agree on the approach to north korea? guest: not at all. on the one hand you have japan, which lives under the threat of north korean missiles and is technically still at war with north korea. and south korea, which is of course north korea's long lost brother, but is also technically at war with north korea. determined and

basic interest in seeing a change in the regime in north korea. china and russia they have a basic interest in seeing stability and continuity. the u.s. has a determined interest in solving this nuclear problem so that it doesn't reach the point where it can threaten the united states, if we're not there already. so on a basic level we all have different goals. that's not to say there aren't things we have in common. and the commonalities is that all those serves could be served by north korea dismantling its nuclear program and missile program. that's the one thing that could solve everybody's wish list. so that is where they all meet. that is the common objective, but that doesn't seem to be happening. host: has anything precipitated this current situation? guest: yes, actually. the main thing is a story that unfolded two years ago, when the u.s. actually did decide to engage north korea bilady they came up with an expensive deal,

it was the leap day deal because it was to be announced on leap day, february 29, 2011. the idea here was north korea would agree to all sorts of concessions, missiles, allowing sbectors back into facilities and we would give them all sorts of food aid, energy aid, they were not supposed to be linked, but they were. it was a wink, wink, nudge, nudge kind of thing where we would basically bribe them to do things they had already agreed to do years before. the day before this was to be announced in a state department, kim jonge il died -- host: unexpectedly? guest: yes, unexpectedly and unclear circumstances. the bottom line is that deal died with him. once kim jong-un came sba power, this changed calculus and sent everybody back to zero. there was a cooling off period

and people wondered whether or not this new warming of relations with north korea could survive the change in leadership. and sure enough, north korea then set off a missile, they then detonated a nuclear bomb and that was pretty much the end of the diplomacy as we know it. host: kim jong-un, do we know enough about him? guest: no, one of the most opaque stories in world leader situations around the world. we know that he's approximately 30 years old -- host: approximately. guest: approximately. yeah. and we know he loves basketball, we know that he has a less strong position than his father did. kim jong-un, when he came into power 20 years ago around 1994, he had been prepared for that role for 20 years. he had been the heir apparent for a long time. he had been doing a lot of things inside north korea to consolidate power well before his father, died.

kim jong-un had no such preparation. it was not clear who was going to the successor. kim jong-un is the third son. and he didn't have time to prepare and he didn't have a long record to show the rest of the north korean elite leadership that he had what it takes to run this country. so, he's doing that now. and most analysts believe that a lot of what we're seeing is an effort to consolidate power. some analysts believe they're doing this because the situation has become so bad that he needs to put forth the u.s. as an enemy, as a strawman, to justify to his people why things are going so bad inside his country. some people believe he's simply not calling the shots and that the group of military families that surrounds him is actually, are actually the hawkish voices inside the north korea lead system and they're the ones driving this very belligerant policy. no one knows for sure. host: is china an ally?

guest: china supplies north korea with the food, fuel, and cash they need to survive. and by north korea, i mean the government here, not the people. because remember the people in north korea live in abject poverty, millions of people starving every day. you have a very small number of elite families that are very rich, and then you have the military class that are well fed and well taken care of, first of all. china enables north korea. and they protect north korea diplomatically. that's not to say they're not angry with north korea or have differences with them. but in the end, yes, china is north korea's ally, north korea's friend. host: want to show this satellite map, this is a night map that is taken, we'll let you see it too josh. japan, off the coast, all lit up, china off to the left, all lit up. south korea, there on the bottom, all lit up, and then

there's north korea, right up there in that center spot with no lights lighting up. guest: right, i love when people show this picture because this is the photo that sat on the desk of defense secretary donald rumsfeld. he had one of the standing desks where he would never sit down, it was a clear desk. he had this in front of him at all time and liked to look at it almost every day. his is the photo that people used to show that the south korea system, the chinese system have succeeded for other people better than the north korea system. and yes, that's clearly true. so let's agree that north korea is not doing well, and that they're living in abject poverty. inside north korea, that doesn't matter as much because they don't know that, because they have information control over their people. so let's also acknowledge here that as far as north korea's

concerned, their backwards developments and lack of technology and provisions for their people are less of a factor because they're not answerable to their people. host: we are talking to josh rogin. rest of the program on "washington journal" devoted to a look at north korea.

i think it's really unfair. he calls north korea a poor country, so forth. so, why are we over there instigating wars. i know -- host: we got your point, we appreciate your call. josh? guest: sure, i think it's important to note that there is no embargo on north korea. a little bit mistaken. what you might be referring to is the very serious and very extensive set of international sanctions on north korea. and these sanctions were instituted over a series of processes over the last 20 years in response to north korea's

provocative and often criminal actions. these sanctions include freezing north korea's assets, preventing north korea from proliferating with weapons, includes its weapons of mass destruction to other countries. these sanctions are meant to punish the north korea regime. it's arguable they have an effect of punishing the north korea people, but not nearly as much as north korean government punishes its own people. it's a controversial policy, but that is our policy to mix pressure with the enticement of engagement. that policy hasn't worked so far, i'll grant you that. host: joy tweets in -- .uest: that is the argument we're talking to militarize zone. i believe the north koreans feel they are threatened.

that is true. how to deal with that. or they planning a war interested in settling the .ispute they are interested in their survival. were accusations against the international community. they are not crazy. they are willing to do almost anything to get those things. that is how we have to see north korea. host: josh rogin has studied in tokyo and work as a reporter for a leading newspaper in japan. guest: i have been to the dmz.

place. very creepy is where north koreans and south koreans stand next to each other and never talk to each other. if one person looks the wrong way it could spark a conflict that could result in death. that is how the north korean crisis is. the risk is not that north korea would declare war on us. one side may misunderstand and to go outside the control of both parties. was up onha raddatz the dmz. soldiers are almost then they face to face.

there is no acknowledgment whatsoever. guest: there are buildings that straddle the border. e the armedhav soldiers that are ready to engage. they should not make eye contact with the north koreans. we sought north korean tourists on the other side of the dmz. they wanted to in gauge with us withey wanted to engage us. all the elements are focused on the regime. there are 25 million north korean people that are suffering greatly.

beenolicies have never aimed at engaging the north korean people through direct contact or radio. we should keep in mind that the posture and millions of people are suffering close by. that what about the border north korea has with china? guest: this is the border where most of the traffic occurs. it is the number-one ninth line -- lifeline for north korea. human trafficking on a massive scale. hundreds of thousands if not millions of women that are sold to the chinese. we are talking about the flow of drugs and illicit goods back and

forth. this is where journalist go through it and sometimes get caught. the northern border with china is largely unguarded. it is also where weapons pass through. ships or through the border. largely.hina's problem further instability could exacerbate the problem at the border and dries them to things. pyongyang to do host: jay is calling from fiji. caller: bear with me. we, and barely speak english -- ugly.

host: we are listening. caller: perhaps we hope to hear more international callers of your show. is an issue with north korea. you have to know who kim jong unis. . the guy is basically a schmuck. .e was obsessed with his xbox he is no leader. china holds the keys to the solution in north korea. u.s. presents the involvement in taiwan. keep that in mind. serious but iss

not really serious. the b-srea resents bombers. china deals to have with that. my question to josh. the u.s. see someday when it comes to the palestinians. that issue has to be resolved fairly. writing blank checks. host: back to your comments about north korea. is there more of a focus that you are seeing on this area?

caller: most people did not hear that news like you hear in the u.s. i am more exposed. most people know this is a bluff on the north korea side. host: how are you watching c- span? you are old. just kidding. kim jong un a "sch muck." . would say it doesn't matter he will make its calculations based on survival and on his benefactors. is it china behind this?

my analysis is that china is not behind this. korea.pply north china did urge north korea not to do the nuclear test. if you push too hard, you might reveal your own impotence. the chinese have a delicate balance to strike. staianiniane the palac issue for another show. they do not have the ability to nuke austin, texas. there is a lot of dangerous things they can do. they have sunk a south korean

ship. that was not a bluff. .he south korean sailors died people died in another attack, too. there are provocations that north korea can take including detonating bombs and targeting small killings of south koreans. that can be very serious. today."chart fom "usa

host: these numbers seem that north korea is favored when it comes to the neighbors -- numbers. is a discussion that hopefully will never be actualized. betternario would mean devastation most for the people of south korea. we're talking millions of people. troops has been

drawn back in prison years. -- recent years. more on a focus of letting the south korean army to take the lead. that plan is in place. all-out war is the worst-case scenario. we are hoping it doesn't come to that. and much more limited scenario with a provocation and a response. host: you do foresee that happening? response?een the guest: the response has been increased diplomatic isolation, increased punishments economically and a refusal to give north korea many of the things that they want.

there will be a time when south korea can no longer respond in non-military means. have beenkoreans determined so far not to cross that threshold. that is just a matter of time. we can delay the crisis or the escalation will continue. career will continue. josh.: good morning, where to cite an article they weress that developing nuclear weapons.

we know there was a relationship with kim jong un. also had ad iran similar relationship. they were living on the southern border. they could have developed a nuclear weapon and taken them across the border. to believe they could no make when their taxes. china and russia are the big bullies into the po a fight. and it is naive that will not come to a full- scale conflict with these

people. he is not the brightest bulb. very much.bearer much real ande resisk is dangerous. north korea has been working with iran and also working with syria. they proliferate to countries like burma. that is legitimate in a serious issue. interest asssia's best we can tell is instability. are dependentia on economic growth. all out war is not in their

interest. agree with you about that. host: wended madeleine albright go to north korea? extensivere was an effort to engage north korea during the clinton administration. 2000 when mallon albright travel to north korea -- madeleine albright travel to north korea. the progress has now been reversed. the bush administration had talks in 2005.

it is not a partisan issue. north korea had better be engaged at some point. matter ofit is a debate. now all that is pretty much overtaken by events. from this next call comes john in philadelphia. guys.: great show, in ther if you can color conversation with people like henry kissinger, members of the bush andrge h. w. possibly the very wealthy reverend sun knowmon. any --

you. josh could not hear are you looking at financial interest? caller: absolutely. kissinger and frank carlucci and group.s host: is there a financial interest in this situation? guest: from? host: he mentioned frank , andcci, george h.w. bush i think he mentioned kissinger. guest: former officials have all made careers out of consulting for various international interests have all kinds of intertwined interests.

henry kissinger does some work for the chinese. some people are critical of that. that is a business these guys are anin. sometimes you cashen by consulting with america's enemies. they are motivated by solving the problem. what they do after government is their business. we live in a free country. was recentlyrodman there. did he get debriefed by the state department? guest: he met with kim jong un. it was a big show.

they are both using each other for publicity. the state department was pretty upset about this. they did not get any great information from dennis rodman. it was a big disappointment for the u.s. government. dennis rodman is granting legitimacy of a brutal dictator who is a pressing millions of people every day. if dennis rodman does not care about that, nothing will make him care about that. that on my want conscience. host: says the u.s. have any presence in pyongyang?

bureau inre is an ap pyongyang. there are americans and western teachers at pyongyang's universities that are teaching english as a second language. that is basically it. there have been two visits to pyongyang that were kept secret. visits by intelligence officials. a guy that works at the national security staff. secretre seen as outreaches to the north koreans. there are american experts and journalists that are invited in by pyongyang. they did the windshield tour.

.here is l level of contact most of the level goes to the new york channels. there is a guy that deals with americans. eric schmidt went to north korea and he had to make that deal through there. bill richardson wanted to cross the border. they have to go through the new york channel. that is how business gets done. host: columbus, ohio. caller: hi. 1955.in korea in this is global economics. asking questions about china. aspen lodgeis doing

on electronics -- is doing espionage on electronics. trying to make this -- to go through this. it is to a conflict. china or russia or somebody. host: what would you like to see the u.s. policy toward north korea be? caller: we have been putting money into south korea into the 1950 cost's. that was a hell of a waste. host: any comment? inst: korea has been a pawn the great power struggle between huge empires.

they are aware of that. have allssia, japan fought wars on korean soil. the wars ofgacy of the last century that the koreans carry with them. oklahoma. in caller: yes, sir. i'm a retired lieutenant colonel. . had a comment on a theory i believe there is a lot saber rattling because of the exercises going on at this time. we stopcontinue until exercising and he will claim victory and say, look what i did. that is a it.

guest: that is an interesting take. -- the u.s. has introduced new offensive technologies including b2 bombers and stealth fighters. as partercises are used of the propaganda argument to say the u.s. and south korea are preparing and innovation into north korea. there is two ways to look at this. north korea will declare victory after the exercises are over. the exercises are going down, there's not much that north korea can do. that the exercises stopped, becomes the most dangerous

point. we don't know will happen. you could be right. we have to wait and see. host: "nobody home at the state department" when it comes to north korea. guest: i have been looking at the people in the obama administration that do korea. there are not a lot korean experts doing korea policy. there are a bunch of officials that know something about korea but not korea experts. this is a difference in how was set up in the past administrations. experts had greater ties to south korea and north korea.

you could debate whether that has been successful. the policy towards north korea has been called strategic patience, leaving north korea alone and not pursuing a robust engagement that would feed their desire for attention and bribes. .hat has been their decision strengthen america's defenses and pretty much leaving north korea be. we are seeing a failure of that policy. strategic patience has not resulted in north korea changing its tactics. now we have to see what the change in policy will be. from jamescall comes

in new jersey. hi, josh. j . have a nephew in north korea i know somebody in west korea. this. expect is obama to gowanted over there about basketball. something that they do have in common. negotiations is necessary. the sanctions and propaganda is not working. negotiations about what he wants puzzle me. thank you. negotiationsally will have to take place.

the question is under what circumstances? for themost impossible united states to enter into negotiations with north korea while north korea is threatening nuclear war. all conflicts are solved at the negotiating table. current policy untenable. there are just bad options. responding to belligerence has minuses.es and right nowear is that it is getting worse. the risks of miscalculation are

dangers. we'll have to try something new. host: josh rogin has been our guest. oming up, michele flournoy, former undersecretary of defense. thomas hubbard will be our guest. here is a news update. numbers will jobs be watched closely this morning. market was sent sharply lower yesterday. the dow fell nearly 112 points. the worst decline since february 25th. freddie mac will release the weekly mortgage rates. rosenational stock markets today after the bank of japan said it would expand money-

supply to create inflation. saidndon, david cameron evolving threats from iran and north korea may get a bad time to think about abandoning its nuclear submarines. whenon north korea "washington journal" continues. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] it is been preserved all these years. there were probably 30 to 40 of these mounds and only a couple have survived. most were much smaller. survives. mount also

a lot of those were destroyed and these did survive. it offers us an opportunity to study and learn about their lifestyle and hopefully other and something about how complex their social and political organization was. i always thought one of the great things we have about archaeology is when we look into the past and see what people did, i think it gives you hope for the future. if they could do this in the do?rt, what is we cannot mesa, our the life of arizona, including a look at the saturday atds,

noon eastern and saturday on c- span3. "washington journal" continues. is micheleng us now flournoy, former defense undersecretary for the obama 2012.istration, 2009- are we mobilizing for war right now? guest: no. absolutely not. this is a regular set of exercises that are held every year. signal our strong support and are close ties to south korea and our willingness to support our defense commitments. right now everybody wants to tap

down the tension. host: are these tensions different than in the past? guest: we have seen cycles of provocation before from north korea from the previous leader and the previously before that. we have a new, young, inexperienced leader in place who is very worried about consolidated his own internal power. is inexperienced in terms of knowing how to manage this. he could is that miscalculate. host: does he have internal threats? guest: i do not think we know

fully. we know there is a strong party. the military is a strong constituency for a leader to make him feel he is tough enough to be their man. we have seen a cycle of provocation where the leader aies to consolidate power and military that likes to do some aest beating and likes to see strong leader. host: do we have any contacts with the north korean military? guest: there have been some efforts in the past. north korea is not answering the phone in terms of the behind- the-scenes channels that were open in the past.

we do not know if this is a temporary measure to get us to focus on their needs or whether this is a fundamental change. china?hat is the role of guest: china is very important. in north korea and assist north korea with their economic development. china is probably best position to influence north korean behavior. they have been willing to use that leverage in tactical ways to tamp down tension. we like to see china playing a more strategic role to help this new north korean leader understand that there are limits

to the provocation and to the behavior. he is risking instability. host: are there chinese troops in north korea? guest: not to my knowledge. there are lots of exchanges. host: to the chinese feel threatened in the pacific? guest: the greatest concern is for instability. having thousands of north korean refugees pour across the border. that is what they are trying to avoid. the chinese tried to get more engaged to tamp things down. theyrms of u.s. presence, have a dual point of view.

they understand the historic u.s. role and they appreciate that. that stability has enabled their own economic growth. they do not want the united states to put more forces in the that isecause they feel a counterbalance and they contain a strategy. wet is their perception when build up military forces. served asele flournoy defense undersecretary for several years. phone numbers are on the screen. you can dial in. hagel spoke at the national defense college yesterday. [video clip] >> they have nuclear capacity

now. they have missile delivery capacity now. up so as they have ratchet their bellicose dangers rhetoric and some of the actions realhave taken present a clear danger and threat to the interests of our allies starting with south korea and japan. the northhe threats koreans have leveled directly at the united states regarding our ,ase in guam, threatened hawaii threatened the west coast of the united states. takecretary of defense, we those threats seriously. we have to take those threats

seriously. we have had serious responses to those threats. host: michele flournoy? guest: i think the secretary is it right. the united states has to take seriously the threats from north korea. very prudent action has been ordered to increase our defenses by the president. sending additional ballistic missile ships into the region. this not know where unproven north korean leader is going to go. we don't know if he is going to miscalculate. better to be safe than sorry. of oure our allies

defense. newspaper.the guest: i think we're not at the point to be having that discussion. you would have to think many steps down the road. how would north korea respond? is so close to the north korean border. there are some money missiles aimed at the south korean capital. you would have large numbers of civilian casualties immediately. we have to be careful. i am not saying that option

should be off the table. we do not want to go there unnecessarily. my reading of this tends period is that you are seeing a new north korean leader plane to a domestic said of constituencies trying to get the attention of the west to come to the negotiating table so that he and get some assistance, something for his country in exchange for something on a nuclear front. host: do you believe the u.s. should have talks with north korea? tost: we eventually will get some negotiations with north korea. we got into negotiations with

north korea. we would provide them with assistance. there would start doing it again a couple years later. we do not want to keep buying the same horse when it gets out of the barn. we have to ratchet back this rhetoric. north korea has to calm things down. they have to come to the table seriously. how will they get back into compliance? york.ken in new caller: thank you so much. .'ve been on hold a while

arerding peter king, there lots of intelligent people in my state but peter king is not one. that russiammented and china appear to have the need to maintain the status quo in north korea. i was hoping he would elaborate on that. are the citizens of north korea as in the dark as we are led to believe? guest: great questions. my sense is the civilian population in north korea is not given much real news and no access to the outside world. ofy are fed a steady diet propaganda according to the state.

most do not believe they know what is going on. in terms of russia and china, you can make an argument it is in their interest to see a peaceful resolution on the korean peninsula and the end of hostilities and more unified korea. they both have economic interests in north korea. russia has been given access to a key port. china has a number of mining concerns. very inexpensive labor from north korea. both countries are concerned about change that would bring instability. they tend to take a short-term

perspective to manage the status quo. what remains to be seen is whether that will be tenable with this new leader. host: we have a tweet from monty. guest: i think the program is about regime survival. .his is a family dynasty they want to maintain their hold on power. they believe that this would be if itace in the whole came to conflict. that is what this is really about. it is not a legitimate defense concern. south korea has given up their nuclear weapons program.

peacefulrsued a nuclear program but give up the weapons option. there is no one directly threatening the north koreans with aggressive action or with nuclear action absent its own irresponsible behavior. host: this is from yesterday's ."he wall street journal think the general view is the more countries develop their own nuclear fuel cycles, the more places there will be for weapons usable material to fall into the wrong hands.

what the administration wants people to do is to move people to an international fuel cycle where countries are able to buy nuclear fuel for civilian a safe and secure cycle. should be states pushing back on south korea's request. we have extended our deterrence -- we have made it clear our nuclear arsenal also covers our alliance commitment to them. our deterrent is their deterrent. host: edward from florida. michele flournoy is our guest. caller: greetings.

with stationed on the dmv 961 andhth calvary, 1 1962. we had martial law for some time. north korea is an army with a country. south korea is a country with an army. and main source of income for north korea is the counterfeiting of american $100 bills. cutof our missions was to off two-man subs that were heading down from north korea into south korea with currency to buy trade secrets or

whenever. aggressor. is an we have been on a posture of defense since the 1950's. north korea has always infiltrated through tunnels. the north korean special forces would come across our lines and still objects, take back to their commanders, similar to the native american tribes. from micheleear flournoy. guest: thank you for your service. now a thriving democracy. our alliance with them is very much in a defensive posture.

we did not have an aggressive posture towards north korea. these cycles of provocation have been started by north korea and as anuated by north korea attention getting device. would need to be a very clear. this is not a situation where the united states or south korea has openly threatened north korea. we have called upon them to come back into compliance with the international obligations that they signed up for in the nonproliferation treaty. host: have you been to north korea? guest: i have not. host: have you been to the dmz/

guest: yes. you can see the other side through binoculars. it is like stepping back in time to the period of when the armistice was declared. it is a strange time warp to be there. it is a reminder of the fact that this war and never came to an end. it has to a halt -- been to a halt. host: how did you get involved in defense policy? guest: i came out of graduate school -- host: oxford? guest: oxford.

ofot into the whole issue nuclear arms control and so forth and started out in the think-tank world and had an opportunity to serve in the clinton administration. host: and in the obama administration. you work for it think tank that you founded. firm and insulting work with them to build their public sector. host: kelly, thank you for holding. caller: hello. i have a statement. i'm not smart enough to solve all the world's problems. my cousin has a book. osama bin laden, we're looking at kim jong un.

the americans here are held hostage by the sequester and the budget. government is not spending money on defense. my husband was laid off last september. he did government defense work. subs.y have 50 nuclear we knew something like this would happen. we are not spending money on defense. me notn't make sense to to defend the country, especially when you knew these lunatics would rise out of the ashes. i feel we're at an unfair advantage. volatile are in a security environment.

there are many challenges to u.s. security around the world from the continuation of al qaeda and terrorism and what we're seeing in north korea and the instability in the middle east. today you have a u.s. military that remains the strongest of the most capable in the world. how much ision is enough to spend on defense? how do we make sure what we spend on defense goes to defend our interests, instead of wasteful business practices. very sorry to hear about your husband being laid off. we're going through a profound period of adjustment. defense spending comes under

budgetary constraints that we have not seen in decades. host: how significant was the speech yesterday by chuck hagel? guest: i applaud what he said. as we contemplate getting our defensec house in order, has to be on the table. .t is 20% of the budget we've got to anticipate a period of constrained resources for defense. inneed to go after the bloat the defense. costs thatn reform, are out of control. these are key areas we need to look for money first before we start cutting readiness.

i thought it was an important speech. he lay down some intent about what he intends to do as secretary. it was important for the american people to understand. from re have a tweet harringon. guest: with a close alliance with japan in northeast asia. very cooperative planning and exercises.s -- every close relationship. we are keeping japan very much in the loop and a supported a closer relationship between japan and south korea.

there is some historic distrust and public opinion that is wary of each other. military to military much greater openness and discussion. they realize in virtually every situation they will encounter going forward in the region they will find themselves to be allies. >> in your time at the pentagon or time with the clinton administration, did you ever speak with a north korean military official? guest: i did not. we have others that were authorized to have conversations, but i was not one of those people. visit thethey ever pentagon? guest: they did not. and i was not invited. tonyirvine writes, is and

the curious situation one for the state department more so than defense? -- isn't the korea situation one for the state department more so than defense? thet: representatives from state department, pentagon -- this is a policy where integration of the various departments and elements of the u.s. government are doing is absolutely critical so we send a clear, simple message. that are reached peace is critical. you have seen the secretary weigh in on this, sending clear signals not only to the north but reassurance to the south. this is a team effort, icing. over he is on his way there next week. is that significant? guest: it is. on ourere, focused allies. also, we are here. the united states is going to make good on its commitments and

do everything possible to tamp down the tensions. washington, in d.c., on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. you have well articulated a bipartisan consensus over the past couple of decades regarding china's role in the nuclear missile program. the rationale. over china's leverage economic terms over north korea, it is difficult to understand why china could not modulate or controlled north korean behavior, because the regime obviously does not wish to commit political suicide. i think an alternative explanation is china has seen

strategic interest in the north korean program. the threat it has posed, because it has given china opportunity to play the role of enter -- international stakeholders. it is an indispensable partner, according to the west, in every negotiation. present --ina's participation in the program in the past and the secretaries testimony last year that participated in the missile program, do you not see china is playing a different game from what we are attributing to it? china you know, i think does not control the action, but they certainly are not powerless. the united states needs to engage them to try to use the ,everage that china does have

particularly absent the use of leverage, what they will see is more and more u.s. military capability is being deployed to the region in support of south korea, in support of japan. wayed china to weigh in witwo- -- reduce tensions. we have new leadership in china that is pragmatic and very focused on maintaining stability regionally so it can focus on domestic challenges, economically and politically. i think we need to engage them as much as possible, and push them, oppress them to do more on north korea. -- press them to do more on north korea. 32tls --tweet from nupi

why does south korea need to get permission from the u.s. to acquire nuclear material? guest: they have made certain commitments under the non- proliferation treaty and have had technical assistance and support from the united states. the agreement we signed with them is for peaceful nuclear proliferation, and under that agreement we have mutual obligations, including consultation on the issues. host: democrats line. please go ahead with your question or comment. about northuestion korea is one of stability. i understand as a new leader he will use propaganda to get political power, but the same thing happened with the soviet union during the cuban missile crisis. at one. -- what do you think

will happen is the new leader does not know how to handle this situation? guest: that is a risk. that is the point in which this calculation becomes very high. the seeds of instability in north korea have been there for very long time. i remember my very first intelligence briefing in the pentagon back in 1993 predicted the potential collapse of north korea even back then. they have much of the population that is starving. they have virtually no economic development. huge inequality between the elite and the masses. no real political participation. a family dynasty that has been very brutal and repressive in the regime. all of the seats for instability are there, and they have been there for a long time. instability are there.

but i do think that if kim jong- un overplays his hands with the provocation, there is a real risk of this calculation. that is what we have to worry about. host: we are spending most of the morning discussing the situation in north korea. we talked earlier with joshua logan. currently talking with michelle inoy. coming up next, we'll talk to thomas c. hubbard who served as ambassador during the george w. bush administration. he served as ambassador to the philippines during the clinton administration. when you look at the numbers of what north korea's military is, more than 1 million troops in uniform. 8 million or so reservists'

ready to go. 4000 plus tanks. 770 vessels. what do we know about the capabilities? they have very substantial artillery rocket capability. that is the most worrisome thing in terms of the ability to strike the south korean capital, guam andotentially qual other places. they have a lot of hardware. i think the estimates are there are elements of the ground forces that are ready, but that they would have difficulty in terms of logistics and sustainment in any kind of prolonged conflict. i do not think anyone believes they would ultimately be successful. theproblem is, even if aggression was defeated

ultimately by the south koreans with the united states and others in support, there would be very high casualties on both sides. obviously no one wants to see that. take a this is a map from usa today, a chart. it shows sites in north korea. underground nuclear test sites. missile sites. suspected chemical weapons sites. what is the intelligence about this area? guest: the united states government has a pretty good sense of how the nuclear program is laid out. the chemical and biological weapons site and so forth. we have the best picture on the nuclear program.

pursuing thebe original path, but also a weapon derived from highly-enriched uranium. in 72% of tweets adults think no. 3 is capable of launching a missile that would be able to hit the united states. do they have a missile capable of reaching the u.s.? so at we do not believe the moment. obviously the worry is if they were able to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile and a nuclear weapon to go on top of that, we would obviously be very concerned. i do not know of anyone who believes they are at that point now. we have seen as a precautionary easure, secretary ohagel increase the number of interceptors from thirtysomething to 44.

be to handle any kind of rogue threat from north korea or another state like iran. in virginia -- jim and virginia on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. secretary, i have a question about a call that came in earlier. and i think when they opened the lines up before the dust, people were calling in with opinions. about theoke situation in 1993-1994, some sort of agreement north korea had to cut back on the nuclear proliferation and activities. we were supposed to provide them with oil, alternative energy sources.

this woman that called and said the united states reneged on what we were offering. that in fact it was our fault they were pursuing things we do not think are positive. what is the truth of that? no one has answered that. guest: i do not think that is true. we have had several rounds of the six-party talks, which includes not only north korea, but south korea, united states, russia, and so forth. there have been several points at which we have reached various agreements, which is some kind of assistance from the west for steps for north korea to come back into compliance with their nuclear obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. time the north koreans have failed to hold up their

part of the bargain. occurred each has time along the way, they have got off the path that was agreed and started a cycle of provocation. i am not familiar with in the episode in which the united states has reneged on a deal. host: from "the washington shoot.shoot, look,

guest: having been a part of that decision earlier in the obama administration, what we sell in the intelligence at the time is the north koreans experience a set of setbacks. the program was not moving at the same pace. to, we were really trying read prioritize the defense efforts towards a more imminent iran and ing from elsewhere and medium-range threats to nato allies in europe and basing facilities in various regions and so forth. what you saw was not an end to missile defense. we kept a program that had more than 30 interceptors' available and ready and more than enough to handle any road that threat

from either north korea or iran. well really building up the missile defense system. a much more imminent threat. never left defenseless. now that you see additional theyrces and progress finally got a missile to launch a satellite into orbit, one of the steps on the program. our steps will be full ahead of their capabilities. the defense of this country. the defense is completely

adequate. host: a few minutes left with our guest. missouri. washington"the journal." caller: good morning. guam. a son anin he is in the air force. what kind of evacuation do they have for americans living that area? ahead and ask your second question. is,er: the second question it is not a question of whether unstable. jong-un is it is not a question of what is he is going to do, but when are

they going to do it? to deflect the nuclear bombs? i have heard there is one that can hit the west coast. there are conflicting stories because i have heard there is one that can hit the west coast of the united states. then i just heard she is not sure or they do not have the capability. host: have you talk to your son? is there any precautions being taken that he has discussed? caller: well, because he is in the air force, and a lot of what they do is secret, so he is unable to tell us what they are doing at this present time. i have not spoken to him personally. i send him an e-mail for his birthday a couple of weeks ago. he got the email but has not

called back. i have not spoke to him, expect -- except through e-mail. guest: i appreciate your concerns as a mom. on the nuclear capability, no one believes north korea currently has a missile that can deliver a nuclear weapon to the united states. they have some crude devices. nothing that can be put on top of a missile that can actually reach the united states today. just to be absolutely clear on that. defensenk the department and the president are taking these threats seriously. in they have moved additional ballistic missile assets into the region, including to protect fguam. if they sought additional mobilization of resources and

readiness on the north korean side, i think you might see corresponding actions, defensive actions on the part of the united states. it will most likely include the evacuation of dependence from any area at is honorable to north korean missiles. i do not think anyone is reading the crisis as having reached that point, but historically when tensions ratchet up to a certain point, you see dependence being moved out of harm's way if people are worried about that threat. host: our last best predicted we would see an action, reaction, another action, another reaction militarily. north korea being aggressive in the short-term? guest: i do not think the u.s. or south korea will do anything to take this into conflict. i think we are trying to tamp

down tensions. if north korea were to launch a provocation that actually killed koreansoreans -- south for americans, there would be a response. we have done extensive, collaborative propagation planning with the south, anticipating all kinds of scenarios -- collaborative provocation planning with the south, anticipating all kinds of scenarios. they have fought through a lot of different scenarios. they have options ready for the president to consider, should hat occur, but again, i think everyone on the west side is trying to ensure we do not go down that path if at all possible. 4 undersecretary of

defense for policy. we appreciate your time this morning. as we continue our discussion on north korea and the current situation there, next up is thomas c. hubbard. he will join us in just a minute after this news update. >> the number of americans seeking unemployment rate has climbed to a four-month high. analysts say that increase partly reflects seasonal distortions of around the spring holidays. the labor department says weekly applications increased 28,000 to a seasonally-adjusted 385,000. that is the highest level since 2000. the government issues the march employment report. connecticut response to the law today.comes and the governor will sign the

bill early this morning. it includes new restrictions on weapons and large capacity magazines. that measure addresses mental health and school security measures. and finally, the maryland house of delegates passed what would be the nation's most restrictive gun control measures yesterday. and it bans assault weapons and on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. that bill returns to the maryland state senate, which is expected to sign off on the charges made to the house. >> it is important to remember a central banker's tools are limited. they cannot control everything that goes on in the economy.

it is very important what they do. they do have firefight powers they can use. they can try to regulate banks, but to think everything that has gone wrong is their fault is wrong. to think everything that has gone right -- alan greenspan probably got too much credit for the great moderation, the many years of strong growth we have to blame alan greenspan is probably overstating things as well. irwine on the managers of local banks sunday night at 9:00 eastern part of

'book tv." as we continue our conversation this morning on north korea, thomas c. hubbard is our latest guest. he served as u.s. ambassador to south korea 2001-2004. prior to that he had been u.s. ambassador to the philippines during the clinton administration. he also served in several capacities with south korea and north korea as a negotiator during the clinton administration. ambassador, tell us about your time in south korea. when were you there? from: nearly a decade ago 2001-2004. was the dayrived the attacks on america took place.

september 11, 2001. so i spent a lot of my time there with the south koreans worry about international terrorism -- terrorism. a time when north korea was somewhat less of a worry. it was a time that the sunshine when they return to forge ties with the north koreans. the north koreans were by and large responding. while we were maintaining our deterrent against any potential momentumuch of the with north korea was positive. --t: was a the 2004 olympics was it the 2004 olympics? guest: it was a time when the north and south were getting along pretty well. the u.s. was in a somewhat tougher posture with north korea. president george w. bush.

you remember the axis of evil. he was was more of a confrontational posture. the assault was the -- out very much. was reaching out very much. host: what was your goal? guest: % for most, to represent policy. if we're doing our job well, we also find a way to make policy and weigh in on the issues. the particular perspective a u.s. ambassador can bring is an understanding the views and needs of the host country. the united states. we have to understand where another country is coming from, especially north korea and south korea. ,ost: ambassador hubbard

something we've not talked about this morning is the new president of south korea. what can you tell us about president park? guest: she is a very distinguished woman. i think it is very significant that she is the first woman president of korea and the first woman to be a national leader. she is a pathfinder in that respect. onttended her inauguration february 25. deal ofs a great enthusiasm. enthusiasm and political supporters. a lot of brilliance in south korea right now. performed at her

inauguration. he saw an outburst of south korean pride. thehe was described here as so-called conservative. what are the policies? guest: all of her policies revolve around the center. she was the canada replacing another central canada. the left was in power most of the time, all of the time i was in south korea. she is a conservative. she is the daughter of the long- time president of career. democratic president of career. changed very dramatically. master therned to

democratic system. eoul close does s sit to the dmv? guest: less than an hour. probably about 30 miles of the closest point. >host: is there a tension level about how close they are to the border with north korea's nuclear capability? guest: surprisingly relatively little attention. i think the south koreans have done that well economically. they have developed a strong democracy. they are a major player in the world now and a lot of confidence there. south koreans have had difficulty comprehending that the north koreans might actually missilesttack, or send

and the direction of south koreans. they have experienced what is often called provocations. these were quite serious a couple of years ago. the north koreans sank a solid career naval vessel, killing over 40 people. sometime later they bombed a south korean island close to the coast of north korea. they have experienced these provocations, which is perhaps too light of the word to use in talking about the death of the south korean military. there is a sense that times have changed. about their business quite confidently. response toheir the incident you just mentioned? guest: a very weak response.

i think everyone would agree. they came with a great deal of surprise. it took some time to make a determination that the south korean ship was sunk by at no. 3 and submarine. there was speculation maybe it was a leftover torpedo from the korean war. once they determined the origin of the attack, it was probably too late to retaliate militarily. vowed that this cannot happen again. if the south koreans attack, they will attack the source and perhaps go beyond that to attack the command center. host: as we have asked previous guest on this topic, is today's situation different than at previous tensions? most: i think this is the

attention we have seen it since perhaps the early 1990's. the concern arises from a number of factors. i think most of the north korean threats they have made our bluster. another has been a provocation against the south. there are all sorts of ways something bad can happen. i think the tension also arises from the fact that there is a new leader in north korea. from the third in line kim family. the grandfather for many years' son was in charge for more than

a decade. , thirdhave a 29-year-old generation leader who has probably used more outrageous language then his father ever did. more threatsd out in a row than his father and grandfather have done in recent years. there is concern maybe he does not know the limits. another element of difference is getting the government in south korea and china and in japan. the president has handled this all very carefully and very steadily. there is some kind of

retaliation. the potential of accidents happening is there. a lot of new leaders in the region feeling each other out. il?t: did you meet kim jong- guest: i was there twice. the first time in 1994. i went there at another time of tension when the north koreans had shot down one of our military helicopters and axle levitt -- accidently strayed into north korean territory. i was sent in by president clinton to arrange the release of one of the pilots that was taken captive and the other was killed. the second time i went there and i arranged and set up madeleine albright's trip to north korea at a time when we were all hopeful we would continue to make progress. jon: did you meet with kim

g-il? guest: no, i i did not. and host: who might be kim jong- in the government? guest: i am not sure there are rivals. the situation is very controlled. i met with senior negotiators, mainly from the foreign ministry. is nowef negotiator deputy prime minister. he is not the first deputy foreign prime minister. we have dealt with that and i think it is a problem with north korea. we have had very little contact with leaders. i do not know that anyone has kim jong-un.

very few people have met with his senior advisers. is of his senior advisers the husband of his father's sister. in other words, his uncle. ofhink i met him once and formal way in south korea at a time when there was more exchange when i was ambassador. beyond that, i do not think we have had very much substantive contact. that makes the country even more difficult to decipher. host: we want to show the satellite map, the nighttime map of the world and of that region. you can see the lights. these are all the different light. china on the left, china on the right. all lit up. seoul

then it seems it the planet -- peninsula stops and it is an island, but it is your career there. when you see this and are looking at this, what was it like to be in north korea? guest: i have that same photograph in my office. i look at it all the time. it is a strange feeling. very obviously a impoverished country. arecan tell that these koreans. wide boulevards. you see very substantial, concrete buildings, and it takes a few minutes as you look around to realize you are looking at a 40 story apartment building with no lights on it, no electricity inside. it is a different kind of

poverty than we're used to seeing in africa or southeast asia. that also expresses the anomaly about north korea. here you have one of them least-advanced countries in the world that has in fact carrying out three nuclear attacks. launchedw successfully a three-stage missile. we do not believe they have yet built a warhead that will fit on in a veryularly backward country and that reflects their influence -- the part of part of your career. host: george on the independent

line. first calller. caller: good morning. i was stationed in korea in 1965 with the signal battalion out of camp casey. my unit was stationed by the freedom bridge near the river, practically in north korea. village, if freedom you know about that. fors a modern village built propaganda purposes and the other side of the freedom bridge in north korea. my question for the ambassador is does kim jong-un speak english at all being that he was educated in europe? the second, why does china not give them what they need? they have plenty of our money. why don't they help those people out more? tractors and whenever they need to grow food. the last question is, why don't we jump protocol and invite the young man to washington for a

dinner and sit down and have obama talked to him or the secretary of state man to man. all they can do is say no. all good questions. have you been back to north korea? host: he is gone. sorry about that. as our calller looked across, he would have found north of rio was probably more prosperous than self reappear yen since that time, south korea has become a success story. north korea is still back in the time warp of 1965. so it is different on the korean peninsula now than it did then. i think that obviously has an impact on the situation we're dealing with. i do not know whether kim jong-

un speaks english. i do not think others have met him. i suppose he studied english at least during the brief time he was in school in switzerland. i would not be surprised if he knows some english. question of china providing what north korea needs actually needs to be turned around. i think many of us think that china has been too indulgent of north korea and so willing to provide food, fuel, and other kinds of assistance that it has enabled north koreans to divide the world in other ways and pursue nuclear weapons program. i think one of our hopes is that the chinese will begin to be tougher with north koreans and demand better behavior in

exchange for their assistance. hy doesn't president obama toinvite kim jong-un washington, there have been some that have advocated that. president clinton seriously contemplated visiting north korea but did not get there. be a littleeed to more careful with the president's time and prestige, and make sure any kind of encounter at that level would be productive and not enabled north behavior of a link to improving things. host: thelma in oklahoma city. and democrats. good morning.ler: my question is i have a daughter who was in south korea

for 20 months. she came home for a visit last month, and is supposed to go back on the 19th. and i am concerned about her safety, how much disruption is going on in the communities. she is teaching english. who tracks the americans when they're in a foreign country? seoul. teaching in guest: that is a very good question, and we understand your concern. as we have said, accident could happen, and there could be some kind of encounter on the peninsula, but i do not think any of us really believe full- scale war is a prospect that

north korea is in any way it likely to carry out an all-out attack on south korea. they note that would be suicidal. they know they would lose any kind of four of that type. we are monitoring the situation very closely. our agency -- our embassy, one of the primary functions is to monitor the security of americans. we a plans for notifying and evacuating civilians. we believe there is a strong chance or likelihood of security problems. south korean authorities are very good. military is very strong. ours is very strong. we stand together with our south korean allies and our embassy will be very much on top of the situation and certainly reaching out to american civilians as concerns arise.

american large is the community, besides the 22,000 soldiers? the embassy and our their bomb shelters, given what the secretary was telling us. the missiles are artillery rather than guided missiles but it is a concern. these include teachers like selma's daughter and others doing business. daughter.s people not been leaving as far

as i can tell. the embassy encourages americans to register and that is helpful so we can reach out. we make every effort to maintain contact with the institutions where americans work. the armed forces broadcasting network, as well as local radio and television to provide notices and the like. i would encourage thelma's daughter to register if she has not done that, but i think we will be in touch. host: can americans come to visit? i have been to countries where i have not been allowed to take pictures of embassies. guest: we usually discourage pictures and we have protection around the embassies. there are security guards where you have to go through. just as i want to the security guards in this building this morning.

americans with business at the embassy are welcome there. we also try to reach out and other air will -- in other ways. host: if i were just a tourist and would want to say hey, no go? guest: you would need an appointment. if your problem, counselors are available. if you have a purpose, people are welcoming, but they do have schedules. a 9/11 change or always? guest: we toughened its after 9/11. host: next call from texas. thomas c. hubbard our guest. know if thented to north korean dictator plans to follow through with threats, what does he plan to gain? guest: i think that is the real that we think he knows

he would have nothing to gain if you follow through on his threats. i do think he believes through the threats he can intimidate us and intimidate the south koreans. the north koreans have had a pattern of carrying out the outrageous acts in order to try to get as back into a dialogue on their terms. right now i think the north koreans want us to acknowledge and accept the fact that north korea is now a nuclear weapon states. we cannot do that. that would have very negative implications globally for our non-proliferation position. it would have very negative effects regionally in terms of pressures it would put on south korea and japan. we cannot accept that.

we are prepared to talk to the north koreans. we are prepared to have serious talks with the north koreans, and clearly there denuclearization needs to be an important part of those talks. we do not think he has anything to gain through actual talks, and that is another reason why much of what he is saying we think is tactical. host: what is the chinese attitude towards america's presence? guest: they would like to see less of our presence invading the region across the board, and in particular, i think they would for for our not to have -- prefer not to have american forces on the peninsula. we could still have some tickets to a troop presence in south korea. i think they realize we're not pulling out. region.to remain in the

we have important alliances in asia, including japan and korea and the philippines, where i served in the past. we are not to -- not about to abandon our allies. we want a constructive relationship. host: when north korea propagates or acts like it does, is this a reflection of what china wanted to do? guest: we do not think so. we do not think china welcomes this north korean this behavior? we do not think china wants north korea to have a nuclear weapons capability. the question is, how far is

china willing to wield its potential influence to try to moderate north korean behavior? host: wayne, newark, new jersey. caller: i have been listening to you. you make a lot of sense, right? i was saying to myself, why what north korea let off a nuclear bomb? what what they accomplished? accomplish?ey the president over there is not doing that that over there. why would they go do that? again, i do not think north korea is going to carry out a nuclear attack of any kind, but trying to put myself into their eyes, i think they have looked around the world and

seen other countries develop nuclear weapons, russia, china, india, pakistan. they think somehow possession of that kind of weaponry will be a deterrent against any potential attack from others and will somehow enhance their prestige in the world. one of the points we're trying to make is that ambitious -- ambition is futile. it will lead to north korea's isolation. it will not enhance the prestige in the world. it will not do anything to feed the people that the best answer for north korea is security, as well as economic well-being. ambassador, what is the korean society? are the four moore's organization in the united

states -- for most organization in united states devoted to the south korean/north korean relationship and understanding of korea. we're based in new york and have a full-time staff there. we conduct a number programs, both in new york and elsewhere in the country that shed light on the relationship and help americans understand korea. we have an element of reaching out to north reappeared if we have tried to maintain contact with them. right now it is a bit difficult, but we hope to play our role in reducing tensions on the peninsula. fluent?e yioyou guest: i am not. my second language is japanese. i am a regional expert, but not specifically korea. next calller from new

york. independent line. caller: good morning. i had a marvelous idea. the police action is still not over. a lot of people think we are at peace with north korea. we're not legally, i guess. the chinese now are going to make american keeps. -- jeeps. wouldn't it be marvelous if we could get the chinese to get the north koreans to manufacture something for us? get them something that would push them in the right direction and the world. anyway, i have a funny line here. off my phone and here you. have: i think many of us fought for many years that tiesow building economic

korea will be one way to getting to peace. we have always felt for that be possible we have to see some change in north korea, certainly to drop the nuclear weapons engage inbut also economic reform in doing things to make their economy work better. south koreans have been trying that with the industrial processing zones just across the dmz. they have made it quite a thriving place, turning out goods around 500 million per year. unfortunately two days ago the north koreans stopped allowing south koreans to enter to oversee the project. that is another blow to

thinking somehow economics is a way to bring peace. i continue to hope, but recent signs are not good. host: this is a north korean entities or company or area managed by south koreans? is a city in north korea, just a city closest to the dmz, just across the border. under an agreement they reached a decade ago, the north koreans have allowed south koreans to come in and set up a manufacturing zone, a small manufacturing zone in which they deploy it north korean people. it has been a safety valve between the two countries. it has been thriving quite well. it is an important source of currency for the north koreans.

the northing and paid korean government for the north korean labor. koreans areth paying the north korean government for the north korean labor. the thought has been this is teaching them capitalism, that you can begin to make inroads against the regime that way. i am surprised and disturbed the north koreans seem to be shutting that down. host: what is the population of north koreans in south korea? guest: it is hard to say because some of them go back generations. i think there are at this stage koreany 10,000 north refugees from the current regime in south korea. have arrived there in various ways and are receiving assistance from the government. host: are they able to get

across the border, much like the mexican/u.s. border? guest: no one crosses the border. is highly militarized and fortified on the north korean side. refugees escaped through china. it is much easier to get into china, and sometimes come out through southeast asia. that border, is that pretty well open? guest: it is patrolled, but very easy to cross. host: thomas c. hubbard served as u.s. ambassador to south korea from 2004 -- 2001-2004. he works for mccarthy associates. former chief of staff to president clinton. thank you for being part of our program this morning. that concludes our look at north korea today with our guests. we appreciate you being with us. we will be here again tomorrow.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this morning we will be live with a discussion of the role in -- role of women in the arab world. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy tara sonenshine will join the discussion. eastern we will be light as the society of american business editors and writers holds the spring conference. the federal reserve vice chair janet yellen will be there. that is that