snyder. mr. in 1952. korea what do you think the odds are that we will have to go to war again with north korea? the second question is, if we that chinae the odds and russia would participate in that conflict like they did the last time? looking at that picture, it looks like korea in 1952-1953. in south korea, there were lights over it just like here in the states. guest: the big difference in the 1950s was that there were night many lights in south korea that would've been able to show up on this kind of satellite image. i am increasingly worried that there is not a peaceful pathway to solving this problem with north korea. it is a matter of concern because even though there are few options for effectively dealing with north korea from a policy perspective, i think there is a risk of being in and also acquiescing to north korea continuing to develop the capability of having ability that could reach the united states. have stepped back from north korea to a certain degree. thea seems to be sending messa

mr. snyder mentioned won't be operational until her say. between the troops and what is called the african union regional task force, the ugandan led operation. that is something of a work in progress but certainly international experts are looking at the question. >> recently the idea he was floating for his surrender. did did that prevent you have any substance? >> is hard to evaluate what was exactly happening during that period. the state department publicly stated that they could not or would not confirm coney was actually in communication. it seems more likely that a band of lra combatants had gotten into contact with others in the c.a.r. government and eventually the u.n. that they they were not necessarily the group that coney is currently located with. it certainly raises questions about whether other elements could use this line of communication to negotiate greater space or resources that could allow them to prolong their existence or re-up their ranks as they had done during previous peace talks during the process prior to 2008.

snyder. mr. in 1952.hat do you think the odds are that we will have to go to war again with north korea? the second question is, if we that chinae the odds and russia would participate in that conflict like they did the last time? looking at that picture, it looks like korea in 1952-1953. in south korea, there were lights over it just like here in the states. guest: the big difference in the 1950s was that there were night many lights in south korea that would've been able to show up on this kind of satellite image. i am increasingly worried that there is not a peaceful pathway to solving this problem with north korea. it is a matter of concern because even though there are few options for effectively dealing with north korea from a policy perspective, i think there is a risk of being in and also acquiescing to north korea continuing to develop the capability of having ability that could reach the united states. have stepped back from north korea to a certain degree. thea seems to be sending message to no

mr. snyder: we have no better llies. mr. schneider: it's also important to understand the depth and scoach iran's program. -- the scope of iran's program. that is a program that has spread throughout the country. from, isfan and ultimately in the weaponization a area. that's the second piece, is weaponization. it's one thing to control the fuel cycle, it's another thing to turn that into a nuclear weapon. iran is working aggressively to do that. and this deal does not address their weaponization programs. and finally, once you control the fuel cycle, once you're able to have a weapon, it's delivery. iran, with their intercontinental ballistic missiles, icbm's, is working to develop a capability to deliver such a weapon of mass destruction, not just in its region, but throughout the world. israel, iran for israel is an exiss tension threat but iran for the region and iran for the sworled an extreme a threat as it is for israel. we must prevent a nuclear iran not just because israel is our ally but because nuclear iran is a th