hello and welcome to kqed news rom. coming up google's decision to fire an engineer in the wake of a controversial engineer. plus california supreme court justice discussions his report on the barriers facing asian yans from the board room to the courtroom. but first tensions with north korea mound. president trump spoke about unleashing, quote, fire and fury. north korea responded with its own warnings. they say north korea is likely capable of launching nuclear missiles that could reach the u.s.

the rhetoric came days after the u.n. security council agreed to sanctions. joining me is david smirler. thank you for joining us. >> thanks for having me on. the defense intelligence agency has warned president trump that north korea could master the technology to deliver nuclear weapons targeting the u.s. within a year. based on your research, how reel is the threat that those weapons could reach california and other parts of the west cost? >> north korea is saying they have the capability as early as last year and they showed a series of signs and tests that would be supportive of the assessment. >> the number i've seen thrown out is these missiles could have a range of 6,500 miles, if that's true it puts california

but also possibly denver and chicago in range, is that correct. >> that's right. the last test on the 28th of july indicated the one they launched on the fourth of july had significantly longer range. >> so having the capability is one thing, using it is another. what are the chances you think north korea would launch a nuclear strike against the u.s. >> north korea developed its program to fend off conventional conflict on the korean peninsula. they're aware of the military supporty of the united states. they developed this program to throe another calculation of any idea of removing the kim regime through military intervention. they fdesigned it to fend off a

invasion they're not going to use it unless they feel they're being invaded. >> can you tell us how they're getting their materials. >> the weapons program started a while back. if we go back to the original, older piece of the program they got their first ballistic missiles from the russians in the '70s. and it was then a series of networks that went from pack stan to iran that developed the program to where it is today. >> we've seen the rhetoric president trump has said military solutions are locked and loaded. what's your reaction to his warning that the u.s. is ready to use military action. >> that is expected. coming out of the president's office that is something i think we're all starting to get used to. i don't think it helps constructively in any way. the north korean's developed this program because they were

afraid of military intervention on the korean peninsula and using rhetoric like this is not going to help at all. >> as tensions continue to mount, what's the big risk here? it could take one miscalculation to throw things to the brink of war. >> the north koreans are aware how dangerous the u.s. military is. so using reckless terms like locked and ready to go and flame -- i forget what the president said exactly but something along those lines it only elevates tension along the pen nins la. >> they come on the heels of a new round of sanctions. but previous sanctions haven't stopped north korea from developing nuclear weapons do you think this latest rounds are going to hurt. >> sanctions take time but ult plait the program was developed

under heavy sanctions. it may slow the program down a little bit but north korea has reallocated funds to their project. this will hurt but it won't stop the development. >> china wants to preserve peace in the region. some are calling for its assistance to put pressure on north korea to put a stop to all this. what is china's role in all this and what is it likely to do, do you think? >> i think china is interested in the status quo, north korea is the buffer state. they're one of the main suppliers and trading partners with north korea. with that said they're not interested in the situation on the korean peninsula escalating. there's a common misconception that china needs to do one thing and this goes away. it's going to take multiple parties. china has a role but it's not up

on them. >> what is the option to contain north korea's nuclear threat. >> they're not going to give up their nuclear weapons program. they developed it for a reason. it's going to take years for us to even reach that conversation. however we can try to have conversation and negotiations to stop further development of their weapons program to prevent them from becoming more dangerous than they are. >> what does that conversation look like? is it a deal with north korea suspending their tests, what does it get from the u.s.? >> they want policy against north korea to cease. that probably won't happened. outside of the wmd program they're notorious for human rights abuses. in exchange north korea want it is end of military exercises in south korea.

so how a negotiation would take place i'm not sure. but in order to start that process and see where each party has wiggle room you need to start some preliminary conversation. and that would be the most constructive path. >> do you think kim jong-un is open to that. he's 33 now, took over when he was 27. is he reasonable? >> i think again in order to feel out the waters, you have to start some type of conversation and as long as there were no preconditions to it, i'm sure the north koreans would be willing to have a conversation. >> all right. david with international studies at monterey. thank you for joining us. we turn to silicon valley's struggle with diversity. james damore's 10-page manifest toe argued that the low number

of women in technical positions was the result of biological conditions he also said women's knew rot schism might make them less likely for coding jobs. joining me now to discuss this further are google zaire engineer courtney marshall, senior editor of silicon valley desk key na-kim and jonathan tower. welcome to you all. you work at google, courtney, you're here in your own capacity not representing the company. there was supposed to be an all-hands on meeting yesterday with the ceo, it got cancelled what happened? >> the town hall was cancelled because of fears of employee safety being violated. there are people leaking information about wear employees

live. so people don't want to make a statement and then have somebody knock on their door they don't know. >> as i understand, isn't there a board that you have where people can ask questions that you want to have at the meeting. >> exactly. the questions are being leaked and that's part of the whole conversation is that these -- it's set up to allow people to have a conversation and some kind of vote on topics that they think are interesting. and when you can't do that knowing that it's going to be protected, then you feel nervous about even making a statement. >> what is your reaction and opinion to james damore's memo? >> in my opinion, it is a rebuttal to the diversity efforts that have been going on in the sense that it's scared about change. it doesn't want to see the landscape change from a place of

empowerment from a white software engineer feeling the system has worked for me all these years why do i need to change it to a system that's going to work for everybody. >> so this engineer was fired following the leakage of the memo. i think the firing, was it designed to tamp things down, calm things down, but instead it is a fire storm especially with right conservatives. they're saying his free speech was violated, saying he had a right to say what he wanted to say. >> it is true that the government has to respect your first amendment right to free speech but a corporation doesn't. if you say something that doesn't align with what your company believes they can fire you. if there's an engineer at google who said i think technology sucks and we should work to

dismantle google, as much as he might be the best engineer in the world if he's going out and telling people that, then they can fire him. i think what was not teased out is there's actually liability for google if they had kept him because, as i understand it, google has this system where engineers are -- their promotions as well as pay raises are decided in part by their peers. so if this guy gave a woman a bad peer review and she didn't get a raise or a promotion, she could say this was sexist and the legalo nus would be on the company to prove no it wasn't because he was sexist he gave you this bad review. so i feel they had a fiduciary duty to get rid of the guy because it opens them up to lawsuits. >> you were at google yesterday,

and the ceo made his first public appearance. what he d he say. >> it was an event for girl coders that had long been planned. he was not scheduled to speak there but i think he felt compelled to come out and talk. it was that these girl coders had a place in silicon valley and a place in google. his line was don't let anybody tell you you don't. he didn't mention the memo orda moth orda more. i think he wanted to make a stand that google does stand for gender equity in the work place no matter what fire storm it might be setting off. >> what do you make of the decision, jonathan, and how does it impact you from a vp standpoint. >> my impression of the decision, i think you put your finger on it before, what was his objective? was it to tamp down the

controversy, that didn't happen. he's a cause celebrity for wings of the right. i don't think that was the objective as well. i don't want to put myself in the shoes of the ceo there were lots of things going on. but there clearly could have been been different decisions made, he could have been removed later on, perhaps for cause later. but the way to let him go, was not what the ceo had in mind. >> you guys are venture capitalist, you fund startups. how do you address this? where do you fit in in the echo system. >> we have to be able to, for lack of a better term, see around corner. develop what we think are going to be the emerging technology of tomorrow. one cannot do that unless you're a diverse organize naigs in

terms of perspective around the table. if there's five people around the table and we're all 45-year-old white men we're not going to have the diversity of opinion. it's important to us to have the perspective to think about the technology of the future. >> the industry has come under criticism as well for not giving women entrepreneurs opportunities. it's found that women got 5% that's a jump from a decade ago when they got less than 3%. still it's a minuscule number. >> it's hard to pull a piece of data out and extrapolate on that. i don't know how that was associated with who was seeking funding. so how do you tees it out and say it was because it was a female founder. i think that's merky. i think we are getting better as

an industry. and you're seeing it through more partners in top tier funds. i think you're seeing more females coming out and starting businesses and being funded. it's a slow moving process, but i'm optimistic in the industry getting ahead of that. >> courtney how do you think the industry is doing in terms of diversity? do you think they're doing a good job. >> i think the industry is trying and i think it's important to the industry. it's still aspirational. it's not actualized yet. i think the success will come -- this is one of those long tell things. it's going to come in years to come, but we have to put the energy in it now. it is more critical to business now because of things that mentioned about appealing to a

more broad audience. this is a global community we're dealing with. >> i hear what you're saying but why is it so hard for silicon valley to achieve diverse si. >> i think because it's been successful without it. it's hard to have a conversation with people who feel we've been doing it this way for this long we've made so much money, convince me it needs to be different. that's why people have done the study to say more diverse teams create more profitable companies. but it's still hard to tell people at the ground looefl. i think leadership understands that. now you have to get it down to the rank and file. >> you're hearing from the women in silicon valley that this memo tells you why it's difficult for women to break through because there is a pervasive -- maybe

not pervasive but there is an attitude in tech and women would say this wasn't totally surprising. while it was offensive that these views are still being perpetrated in silicon valley spop i think there's an element of that, too. >> and the u.s. department of labor is investigating google for pay disparities. and now dozens of former and current women employees of googles are looking at a lawsuit. >> google is a federal contractor so because they do business with the government, they have to go under audits to see if they are abiding by fair employment laws, not discriminating against people. in the audit the dol found there were discrepancies in every job category and the chances of that happening is something like one in 100 million.

so they came -- this came out because -- so there's a civil rights attorney here in san francisco who this sparked his interest. so he put out an add saying have you worked at google do you feel like you were discriminated against, and i guess something like 70 women have responded saying yes, they believe that they have. so that's sort of where that came from. >> jonathan you touched on this earlier when you talked about the sporns of diversity how you need to be able to see around the corner, see what technology is coming. if we don't diversify, what's the downside? as we move into artificial intelligence where there are al go rhythms for everything in our life, what happens? >> i think the quality of the products suffer over time and the companies that are not diverse are going to pay the price for that.

so again, we are -- our firm invests internationally, we have diversity in your bloodstream because we look for it around the world. we understand what's going on globally, not just the silicon valley bubble. i think if you maintain a perspective, which is an argument here tonight that there are certain types of engineers that are going to have the privilege of maintaining their job and not including other opinions, it's going to come out in the products. so again it's a threat for us to not be diverse, i think technology will have the same fate if they don't get ahead of it. >> i think there's this notion, because you hear this, diverse teams create better products, better results. that miss the point. you're asking people to give up power, right? and that's a whole different

ball of wax. there was an article that came out that said the only way to really change that dynamic is to have these class action suits because, you know, i think the studies have shown, yes, divers& teams make better products but people don't want to give up the power. and that hasn't been happening so maybe the government needs to intervene or some legal remedy. >> people need to understand these companies are micro kos ms of the societies we live in. >> we are going to have to leave it there. thank you all.

now to diversity in another profession. asian-americans have made strides in the legal profession. they represent 5% of all attorneys in the u.s. yet they still face a glass ceiling in law firms, cooperatio corporations on the bench. we talked to one of the report's coauthors a california supreme court justice. scott schaeffer has that interview. >> thanks for coming in. >> pleasure to be here. >> it looks at law schools, law firms, government attorneys every place that asian-americans would be in the system. what were you looking for? what were you hoping to find? >> we found that asian americans were the fastest growing group in the last several decades.

they work and pop late every legal angle. >> what accounts for that and what's the significance of it. >> some of what we found was there were a lot of perceptions having difficulty making contacts and networks and getting mentors. so a lot of the stuff that leads to promotion and good business relationships, a lot of the informal mentoring and networking that happens in these environments is something that asian americans identify as a big big challenge. a barrier to career advancement. >> is there racism at play do you think. >> i think racism is a strong word. we did a survey of over 600 asian-american lawyers, which is more than 1% of all the asian-american lawyers in the country. what they said was in terms of incidents of overt

discrimination, very rare. but when you ask about implicit bias, the numbers go up significantly. we asked another question is whether they thought members of the legal profession perceive them in a certain way. it is very much -- i think this will resonate with asian-americans not just in law but all walks of life. but the adjectives most commonly associated were things like they were very logical, careful, very hardworking. but then the adjectives were things like efrp thet ik, creative, assertive. so when you're before a promotion committee or when the senior partner is thinking about who are they going to bring to go to the client meeting, these intangible qualities like who has presence, who has a credible

demeanor before a client, those are things that are hard to measure and that's where asian-americans report challenges. >> if justice is blind what difference does it make what color or gender or situation orientation the judge is. >> i think justice o'connor said it best, she said one of the most important things we can do in our society is build a set of leaders that is reflective of the society as a whole. and that increases the legitimacy of the decisions and often the quality of the decisions that are made when you bring people with a variety of background -- i don't just mean race and ethnicity. >> economic status. >> i think we are diverse in our court in all kinds of ways, including professional background. >> not so much gee yo.

fi. >> that is one thing we are reminded we lack a member from southern california. in terms of background, four women, three men, in terms of -- even our age demographic, if you think about that. that's, you know, spans a number of generations. all of these things i think enrich the dialogue and that is part of the reason why we have multimember appellate courts in america because we think seven heads are better than one. >> your own background is interesting. you talked about mentors you were born in georgia went to undergrad at stanford, got a degree in biology -- sounds like you were on a medical school track. >> i was for a very long time. i was almost stereo typically premed. i had two parents who came to the country with medical training they came to finish their training here.

luckily i had an older brother who became a doctor -- a surgeon. and it wasn't really until i kind of ventured out into the world in college and beyond that i started thinking about other interests and not only having other interests but then meeting people who could help me figure out what to do with them, how to actualize them, pursue them. >> you've been on the state supreme court almost six years now. time flies. what surprised you and what's the most fun part of the job. >> the most fun part is the clap raive decision making. the seven of us get along very well. it is interesting, the process of trying to persuade your colleagues. that's what we all try to work on. that's a never ending kind of challenge. >> got to get four votes. >> exactly. you learn humility quickly in this job because you learn

there's nothing you can do as one person, right? you need four votes to accomplish it. and in most cases we don't stop at four, we aim for five, six seven. >> thanks so much for coming in justice lu. >> that will do it for us. you can find more coverage at kqed/"newsroo kqed/"newsroom." thank you for joining us. rober

and then locked and loaded. president trump ramps up his rhetorical brinksman ship with kim jong-un. i'm robert costa. we take a closer look at the standoff between the united states and north korea tonight on "washington week." president trump: north korea better bet their act together or they're going to be in trouble. robert: the threat of fire and fury was not enough for president trump. he now says the military is locked and loaded to counter any threat from north korea. president trump: he's disrespected our country greatly and with me he's not getting away with it. robert: north korea dismissed trump's remarks as nonsense and announced it is working on a plan