>> until the house returns we'll hear from the heritage foundation's bruce clinger. he'll talk about north korea's outreach to him and other republican leaning foreign

policy experts. ngner with heritage foundation, the north asia senior research ellow, also served as former c.i.a. division chief for korea 1996 to 2001. good morning to you. there are stories in the papers recently in the last couple of about interest by russia to learn more about trump's korea.onship with what is your role in that? guest: those conferences have going on for sometime. north korean officials will meet academics and it is a chance to exchange views, ideas n policy and what it can and should be and then i think recently, as many people in are unsure of what the president's north korea olicy is and also our allies have been a bit confused and are would in and north korea be give particularly the signals that perhaps doing military strike. out to aea is reaching

number of people to get a sense f what we think the parameters of north korea policy and the trump administration is. host: you got such an invitation? i have been contacted, i was in meetings in june, wrote an op ed about it. there was no flexibility, they were not interested in i have n negotiations about dunuclearization at all. they want to be a nuclear state and why should they do so? uest: that meeting along with other meetings, including a recent meeting in switzerland, north korea has been very self-confident, even cocky, given the success they have had tests and many, many missile tests. that re very adamant denuclearization is off the table. nothing could be offered to abandon that arsenal. they told us, accept as a state and we're ready to talk about a peace treaty or fight. back in june with

officials, was there a second invitation to meet then? recent contact. host: you accepted or not? uest: i decided not to go to pyongyang, given since september 1, there has been a ban on u.s. there, except for exceptional visa, usually mediaed for humanitarian, or government sources. i think also you have to think what happened k to the american citizen detained nd perhaps tortured and eventually died as soon as he was returned to the u.s. ost: the meetings, what are the exchanges?ve guest: they can vary, given the mood at the time between the two countries, also the specific involved.that are so, you can have a free and ideas, xchange of certainly both sides and there are also often participation by countries, south korea, japan, china. cordial, but ink

emphatic in our views. ost: what is preparation like or for those who exchange in the dialogue, what kind of things do they pring to the table? guest: they are well versed in recent tements, participate in the switzerland talks, mention they were upon lmost had memorized the president's tweets about north korea. so they often are very well times, i've t other ound very -- not only we disagree about history, but at unknowing be seemingly of certain events. host: our guest with us to talk north ssues concerning korea. if you want to ask questions about the conversations, not issue of norther korea, 202-748-8000 for republica republican -- democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. for independents. tweet us or post on the facebook facebook.com/c-span.

the president sending out tweets recently talking about north "one thing will work," and statements and other ways we talked about the calm before the storm. how do you interpret that? guest: we don't know. again, as people who follow this for a living in washington, we're unconcern, imagine the in seoul and other areas. there have been comments uggesting preventative attack, we might do a military attack, even if we didn't feel north to attack us, to keep them from crossing the threshold of having a capability have already. since then, they have seemed to have toned down remarks and seem to be more in context of a reactive attack if north korea but the irst, president's recent tweets seem to go back to that suggesting a military strike. host: one other recent tweet

from the president saying the administrations have been talking to north korea for 25 years, agreements made money sive amounts of paid and he goes on to say hasn't worked, agreements violated, making fools of u.s. negotiators. sorry, only one thing will work. do you think leading up to the last line, does he have a point? does.: yes, he we've had four agreement where is they promised never to build failed. weapons, those four subsequent agreements they promised to give up the weapons promised to never build and those failed. four, ty, three party, party, six party talks were unsuccessful. korea have tried to reach out, those all failed to korean behavior -- hoping for. host: is diplomacy the best way typerd and to come to some

of terms with north korea? guest: as they have said, they won't give up the nuclear weapons, i would add under present circumstances. e do need to use a comprehensive, integrated strategy, using all the instruments of national power, pressure. so if we want to get them back to the negotiating table in a to fullyl way, we need enforce u.s. law. misperception and iscalculations and mischaracterizations of sanctions on north korea. president obama said it is the most heavily sanctioned and cut wrong.ion on earth, he's the u.s. is sanctioned other nations more firmly than north korea. it was only last year we had finally cumulatively sanctioned korean entities as sudan and zimbabwe. host: first call from nashville, tennessee. richard, you are on, go ahead. caller: good morning. my question is, and i have a quick comment. borders of k at the

north korea, china, russia, you are your three big players, u.s., china and russia, everyone has special interest. if we went into a war, i'm oncerned american people don't realize what that entails. is groundlogy war, it troops, it will take that. i remember growing up as a to talk about d if the red chinese ever marched on america, we are in trouble. from different nations, whether the u.s., whether president trump or it ia or whatever, look at like this, it's a five-car stud poker game. has their interest, some are bluffing, some got the just trying tore hold on and see if they can get a better deal, a new car. got to look at, it's a poker game we're playing here. host: richard, thank you. yes, as secretary of

defense mattis and chairman of joint chiefs have been saying, a war on the peninsula would be horrendous. when i was in government, we did war games and table-top always s, the alliance won, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, and that was knew they had nuclear weapons. the pentagon is estimating 20,000 deaths everyday in a conflict with north korea f. we on north tary strike korea, even if we do a limited mobile taking out one missile launcher, we don't know it won't escalate. talking to commanding general when north korea sank i asked ean vessel and how we would respond, he said, response, ctical constrained in duration and geographical location, we have all in, pared to go meaning all-out war. o there's maybe north korea doesn't respond to a limited attack or maybe they start -- seoul or

could get very mess sons and have 28, 500 daughter necessary uniform, 40,000 in japan and hundreds of of civilians in those countries. host: joel in north carolina. you.er: thank i have two questions. first, how can an economy the north korea, support its nuclear program? two, where did the personnel program come from? guest: that's a very good question. puzzled ve often been how a little country like north korea could possibly either out how to make nuclear weapons and icbm's and a other missiles. it is what they put their priority on. they devote probably 25% of entire budget toward the military and another percentage agileation of statues throughout the country and big leadership.s of the

and have sort of scrimped saved and devoted resources, not oward helping their own citizens, who are malnourish, they have m starve, been put it on military program, weapons.arly nuclear the program is largely components they get from outside of north korea, but not something as some people them china or russia gave nuclear weapons. they have worked on it themselves because they don't their allies, russia and china, they feel they need to be self-sufficient. host: money and personnel aren't coming from those countries for the program? a lot is coming from counterfeitingy, of currency, illegal drug production and smuggling, the of est source methamphetamine in japan is the north korean government, they in a number olved

of criminal activity, money laundering, misusing the u.s. system.l host: pat is next, keyport, new jersey, republican line. why can't we ir, use the cuban missile crisis as parallel, an idea for what to do? cuba dged not to invade and in return they withdrew cuba.les from why can't we pledge -- international community pledge invade north korea as long as north korea understands line, step out of they're done? thank you. guest: the cuban missile crisis this year ted a lot as applied to north korea. there are different lessons from missile crisis. many see the tough side, we were with the eyeball soviet union and the other guy blinked. as toughness of j.f.k. the caller pointed out, there we secret agreements

secretly agreed not to invade cuba, which many don't know, to pull out our own nuclear weapons out of turkey and other areas the soviet union on. on pledging not to invade north that., we've done we've had really a long list of tatements and affirmations, both oral and written, to north nonaggression ain promises not to attack them unless they attacked our allies those had no impact, they were parts of negotiations or eparate discussions with the north and they didn't deter north korea from developing the weapons. mattis fense secretary yesterday at an event at association of army talked about several things, including north and gave his thoughts on the current status on what is going on between the two countries. here is what he had to say, i want your response to it. about korea, it is on our minds, you know there reason i recommended the

book we all pull it out and read it one more time. is es and gentlemen, it ight now a diplomatically lead economic sanctioned effort to off thisrn north korea path. now what does the future hold? i can say, so one thing the u.s. army can do and you have got to be ready to ensure that we have military options that our president can employ if needed. currently are in a diplomatically led effort and times have you seen the u.n. security council vote in a row, to wice impose stronger sanctions on orth korea and remember, the security council has countries ike france and russia, chien athe united states, you know who is on there. and all voted unanimously on

this. the international community has u.s. armyat means the must stand ready. and so, if you're ready, that is your duty at this point in time. host: statements? guest: i think secretary mattis, very firmly, very resolutely, but also he is not preventative attack. e's sort of really echoing traditional u.s. policy, in ther forum, he said, if you attack us, we will be firm in response and uses strong language. it is in context of reactive. he is emphasizing that this u.s attack us, led, is diplomatically the state department is taking the lead for now, we're trying pressure of sanctions and targeting financial measures on we're rnational basis, trying to do that. he's telling the military, as is their duty, you always have to if called upon.

but i take his comments more as policy, whereas others in the administration, including the president have signalling more preventative attack. texas, did on, democrat's line, joseph, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you, sir. -- option -- option, right before that, big country, he -- [indiscernible] -- kim jong-un and bring the table to -- nobel prize arena nuclear arm and oth -- from themselves and

he can get wise to take care of his people or not. host: thanks. guest: i think the door should be open for diplomacy and i distinguish between diplomacy, where our diplomats meet with and should ats engage with north korea. six-party talks or other, where north korea said abide by basic nuclearizing north korea. north korea has kept the door closed the new york channel, where because we don't have embassies in each capital, we interact officially at the u.n. missions new york city. north korea closed new york channel last july after we cited kim jong-un for human rights violations and reopened it this the return of the u.s.

citizen. demill tarized zone, north korea does not pick up the empty their line or mailbox for messages. korean u.s. and south military officers on the border line yelling, please, we want a meeting, please pick up the phone. they don't there is a military reas that tween cot north korea doesn't answer. we've tried diplomacy, we've negotiations, they have not been successful, yes, we be trying to engage with north korea before we go into a military situation. host: we've learned to live with countries being nuclear powers, can we come to that way korea?nking on north guest: perhaps its is wored smithing, there is a talk about acknowledging them, i don't think we can formally acknowledge or accept them. you can't pretend they don't have nuclear weapons, i might acknowledge them

but assess they have nuclear weapons f. we acknowledge them, agreement, n an freeze for freeze, it runs the risk of undermining nonproliveration treaty, runs ounter to nonproliferation policy for decades, it sends bad iran and other countries and would also cause concern by our allies that would see it as willing to accept a threat to them as long as we try prevent it from a threat to the american homeland n. my they sions with allies, said it could have a very negative impact. cordova, l from tennessee. caller: yes, i first off want to comment.ick how do you negotiate with a despate that murders his family and other people around him in the most brutal way. sane individual, they are shooting rockets over the heads of our allies, it's to take a stand.

i'm so glad we have a president and military leaders like we do, we are not going to there being frozen to death like my neighbor did, anymore. if he keepos acting up, north korea is going to be no more and is what hame, but that is going to happen. uest: all right, well, history shows we have negotiated with brutal, terrible dictators, we treaties with l the soviet union and the warsaw one of was a member of the negotiating delegations. we union, trust the soviet but saw it in national interest treaty. arms control an agreement with soviet union during world war ii and common enemy against adolf hitler. i disagree kim jong-un is crazy, that is something we have heard and heard it applied to his studies in ve done

government and out of government, so he's both the and son and indeed the grandfather. we're all brutal, terrible dictators, but they weren't crazy. many are advocating preventative saying even though we can live with nuclear russia and hina, we can't live with nuclear north korea, he is crazy, he may wake up and push the button. not crazy, therefore, you oac -- attack him, he wouldn't respond because he knows the u.s., a logical response, a logical disconnect, attack because he is crazy, but wouldn't suffer sane, uences, he'd have a rationale response. on the military option, it may come to that. particularly if north korea attacks us or our allies fwe intelligence, we think they are about to attack us, particularly with nuclear i'm ns cht the thing

concerned about more than a crazy kim jong-un starting an danger of efk population and miscalculation. a tactical situation could escalate to strategic confrontation, you know, almost in the blink of an eye. as you have n, south korea, north korea, u.s., in close tary proximity, thing consist happen, one can misperceive the actions and as everyone is leaning forward, all three may ries have said, we based on rhaps incorrect information. look, the more you test and brag weapons, we may need to lean forward and preemt, biggest concern, misk redal population across the line. an article in a kim jong-un ut the

family. guest: kim jong-un is the power gain s sister certainly nothing stature and power, but we shouldn't look back on kim had his uncle, the brother-in-law of the previous executed for a number of erceived crimes, including having too much power or seen as alternate power base. seen as a challenger, real or perceived to the leader, is often removed. mean, perhaps the second most powerful man in north korea is dangerous job, that is what his uncle was before he was executed. democrat's line, joe in michigan, hi. caller: good morning. is, is china ion willing to go to war with the actions tates over the of north korea? and a second thing, i think we intelligence on north korea's assets than anybody will ever know.

if this thing happens, if war does happen, it is going to be quickly. there won't be a big invasion of any ground troops in south korea, it will be over like the iraq war. saddam hussein had the third biggest standing army in the world, it last the four days, we intelligence than north korea or the president stupid be making those statements that he makes. there's a reason he's making those statements. ur military knows more about north korea, we will probably be his to preemt the launch of missiles, how many missile doeses he have, can he hit every city in the united states? we can annihilate north korea if three hour fist we want to. host: joe, thanks. guest: i was in the intelligence as develop 0 years division chief for north korea, called north korea the hardest of the hard targets.

i had shifted to north korea from working the soviet union, retrospect was an open called hardest book union.ed to soviet that is not to say we know nothing about it, but it is a intelligence problem. you know, we know a fair amount or a lot about their military, conventional he forces, the number of nuclear weapons is far less certain, you think they have perhaps which so scud missiles can range all of south kore a. missiles we listic think are nuclear capable, can range south korea and japan and missiles that can range the key bases in guam and continuing to icbm's. they just tested an h bomb 10 powerful as the hiroshima bomb. as i said, we did war games, it horrendous casualties, so

ow that they have mobile missile launchers, it is harder to target those n. war, anything is possible, maybe it is quick and dry war and everyone is over orow quickly it is e could see it as secretary mattis and joseph dunford said, it will be unlike anyone has seen, brutal. very high-risk game if we're trying to push military be overthinking it will easy. host: from staten island, hello.can line, ryan, caller: yes, hello, my feeling is north korea will keep on nuclear weapons. i listen to a c.i.a. analyst and basically that they are going to try to blackmail us reuniifiying the north with kim jong-un motive to unify with the south, basically. they want to keep on building we want to el

protect seowl, instead of san francisco. i believe that. so it is just a game like the other guy was saying before. is only way he will attack with emp, that is why i see him attacking us. guest: sumi is an old friend, i met in june and ed.wrote an op north korea has been trying to blackmail us, whether through negotiations, they promise to limit or give up parts of the nuclear program in for economic benefit or security benefit or now when the say they won't give up nuclear weapons, they are still fnot ng for, you know deno denuclearization talks, it is way to achieve long tanding objective of removing forces from the peninsula, extended remove the

deterrence or nuclear guarantee, peace would be using treaty talks to try to achieve objectives that would minimize u.s. presence there, the u.s. security of allies and usually also the defense of our in asia. host: one more call, randy in iowa. morning, pedro, bruce. i have a couple of comments and pick up on one if you would like, bruce. you were doing analysis, north nomic analysis of korea, america spends almost 60% military and fallsbly so much more that through the cracks that we can't cover it. i t i want to say is that have very little faith in the to act foundation responsibly over the course of years.

and in 2000, when george bush ame a poster child for the heritage foundation, came into office, one of the first things disengage from talks disengage korea and ith the palestinian-israel talks. so he has let the heritage foundation and their philosophy the party of heritage foundation has left this to on 30 years and -- ost: okay, let our guest respond. guest: well, i can just speak section ortheast asia of the heritage foundation, it is what i work. e have been advocating, as i mention before, comprehensive, integrated strategy using instruments of national power to reach out to north korea dip mro mattically and enforcing u.s. and u.n. resolutions, pulling punches on enforcing blind eye to north

korean and chinese and other misusing that have been the u.s. financial system and breaking u.s. laws and then i've advocated against a preventative attack tis we should reckless, respond to any north korean ttack on ourselves or our allies, not jump into a military option prematurely. on the is at least northeast asia side what the heritage foundation has been recommending. bruce klingner, formerly of the c.i.a., deputy division hief for korea, what are you paying attention to as far as north korea is concerned, what you looking at next? guest: expecting another nuclear weapon test. today, ple predict october 10, would be time when north korea might test the next icbm flying over japan into the pacific. said, north korea always does things on holidays, except when they don't. holiday and it

already passed over in asia. they're going to do another icbm test. the foreign minister said they considering nuclear air burst in the air, h-bomb in the acific, that would be provocative, but even icbm test u.n. and ack to increase pressure on north and look figure signals from [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] president trump: by the way, everybody wanted to be here to