is that has that changed now since he s become president, in showing commitment to south korea s defense and also the bilateral trade deal that is up in the air? candidate trump is talking very differently from president trump because last march as you point out, he even talked about walking away from the mutual defense treaties with japan and south korea. he wanted to have nuclear weapons and sort it out themselves. that was really surprising. you had the chinese happy about it. right now the president has been talking about the ironclad agreement with south korea. you have secretary of defense mattis, secretary of state tillerson, all the time talking about our commitment to defend the region. and that is going to be what people are going to be looking at because while we re very concerned about trump provoking a war, people in the region are much more concerned about the u.s. walking away. so, let s put up a map for our viewers so see some of the stops and issues he s goin
america first positions there have been signals of softening with confusion. the whole thing about the climate change deal, are they going to back off leaving it. clearly there s something going on there, something of a signal, but admittedly, very skeptical world leaders on that issue. if you look at nato, his early comments on nato were obsolete. he would not recognize the mutual defense treaties in his public comments. in europe, that said, there were private assurances made from other leaders and then he did finally do that. so you have some softening of those america first positions but the truth is i speak to european diplomats frequently and of course there are things they ll say in public and things they ll say in private. in private there is genuine, genuine concern not just about the positions but also about the style of leadership. so looking back at some of the specific word choices that he s made over the course of months since the campaign on the united nations, he s ca
military confrontation thinking he can get away with it. and it will start spiraling out of control. what is the response that doesn t allow spiraling out of control? because nobody wants a nuclear war and, frankly, with the mutual defense treaties we have in place with japan and south korea, we can t really even get too involved in a conventional war there. there are lots of people who would die. yes, i think conventional conflict with north korea, which we would easily, we and the south koreans would easily win within six month, would be such a human catastrophe it s simply not an option. we re in a dangerous situation. 25 years from now, my granddaughter s sit here as a retired four star general, we re going to be looking at a north korea with 150 icbms. so in the interim, you know, these economic a proech approaches and puttingchinese, l
bellicose. the reality of the matter is we are going to be force intoed defensive military measures hopefully with enhanced investment in missile defense. and also an attempt to provide whatever economic leverage and cyberwarfare, and low level nonwar measures to try and contain the north koreans. but we re going to have to learn to live to the peril to the american people. within a decade the north koreans will have a usable icbm that can threaten us. congressman, this is tricky because we know less about north korea than we know about other places who are adverses. we have american troops in south korea and japan with whom we have mutual defense treaties. and we have american troops elsewhere in the region. this goal that general mccaffrey talks about of north korea is to unify the korean peninsula isn t happening on anybody s watch. so what politicly and
employed offensive axes against the u.s. forces or south korea or japan. north koreans are not backing off the stated goals unify the korean peninsula and be recognized as a nuclear power. i think we are again although the rhetoric has been pretty bellicose. the reality of the matter is we are going to be force intoed defensive military measures hopefully with enhanced investment in missile defense. and also an attempt to provide whatever economic leverage and cyberwarfare, and low level nonwar measures to try and contain the north koreans. but we re going to have to learn to live to the peril to the american people. within a decade the north koreans will have a usable icbm that can threaten us. congressman, this is tricky because we know less about north korea than we know about other places who are adverses. we have american troops in south korea and japan with whom we have mutual defense treaties. and we have american troops elsewhere in the region. this goal that general mccaff