It all begs the question, is sony doing the right thing for the nation or for its business by pulling the film altogether . And will this encourage other hackers with a grudge against corporations or the government to do the same thing . Lots to discuss with our first guest, ceo and editor of foreign policy. Also author of national insecurity, American Leadership in an age of fear. Thank you as always for being with us. Will sonys reaction be taught as a case study in how not to handle a situation like this . I think it will. I think this is from top to bottom, just about everything that you could do wrong on the message that it sends is that hackers, some place, can get into a business, get into a businesss mind and actually censor things. You know, imagine, you know, kim jongun decided, if in fact, the reports are right and north koreas behind this, he didnt want the United States of america to see this movie, and so he made a threat, played on the fears of the United States, played on the fears in sony, played on their lawyers fears of liability and risk. And what happened . They pulled the movie. What kind of precedent does that set . And what kind of floodgate is it going to unleash as other people want to get other americans to shut up or pull their products from the shelves . Yeah. David, what should sony have done to set the right example here . Well, i think, in the first instance, sony shouldve said were not intimidated, we stand behind artistic freedom. Were going to take precautions to protect those, perhaps, that are going to see this in the theater. Well distribute it via means, perhaps, that do not create as great a risk. We are going to work with the United States government to identify who did this. But we cant allow this precedent to be set. They didnt do that. I also think, however, theres a lot of responsibility in the United States government to actually have the kind of response that deters people from doing this in the future. And were a long way from that, too. Yeah. David, speak more to that. And by the way, i could not agree with you more here. I think the response is pathetic, i think it feeds into our culture of being afraid of everything, even though the department of Homeland Security is saying there is no credible threat here at all. I think the probability is that north korea could or would try to bomb a Movie Theater in the u. S. Are pretty low. But moving aside from that, what can the government do . If corporations are being hacked and that is being used as a threat to our national security, does the government need to get more involved in corporate Cyber Security . I think the government does. But, you know, you make a great point. If north korea actually did perpetrate an attack that involved a weapon and involved an explosion, wed know exactly what to do. Wed set a precedent with it with 9 11 and other attacks. We would go after the attackers. We would use force, we would do whatever was necessary to deter it. But were so far, you know, so early in the cyber days, we dont have a kind of credible response. The government here is still evaluating when it talks about what it might do behind the scenes, it talks about sanctions against a government that has already been sanctioned and already been isolated. So thats not going to be terribly effective. And i think, its very important that the United States government sends a message that if you launch a cyber attack against us, against our company, companies, against our people, that you will get a sure, Swift Response that will be legal response, economic response, and if necessary, perhaps the Cyber Response or some other kind of response involving force. Otherwise, why shouldnt people do it . Whats the disincentive . David, i disagree somewhat with you and my dear friend crystal. And the Community Stands with you, Steve Carrell tweeting, a sad day for creative expression. Fear eats the soul. Ben stiller tweeting, really hard to believe this is the response to a threat to freedom of expression here in america. I understand that. I understand the dangerous precedent, the not wanting to give into terrorists, the disgusting concept of kim jongun having a veto of what goes into american theaters. But its not really sony who pulled this. Its the theater owners who really have no they dont really care if theyre going to show the interview or into the woods or what have you, as long as theyre making money. And if you are a theater owner, could you really risk having the theater experience marred by something happening and people being afraid when they come into what is your house that they are not safe . If you are that i mean, sony wants to stand behind their 44 million investment. But if youre a theater owner, why would you do that . Why would you put people at risk for a movie. Well, i dont think you would if you didnt feel that people were secure. But there are a lot of ways to make people secure. I think sony couldve gotten together with the Industry Association with the theater owners, with the theater owners Industry Association, with the department of Homeland Security, with local police forces. And they couldve said, this is what we can do to protect these theaters and also to protect freedom of expression in the United States. And they didnt do that. And, look, you know, there is a disincentive, as i was saying a moment ago against actually making an attack. And there was no credible threat of an attack. We live in an era as weve talked about before on the show, an age of fear in which we are so on edge because of everything that happened in 9 11 and subsequent to that we take these threats of a threat even and we blow it up into something that paralyzes us or causes us to change our behavior. Whether thats torture or whether thats shutting down theaters to a movie, its the wrong response. We have to find a response that moves us away from fear and back towards protecting our way of life. Nobody did that. David, in terms of finding a government response to this, it seems to me the most important thing is demonstrating to either north korea or other people who might perpetuate similar attacks, you wont achieve your objective by doing this. The objective seems to have been preventing anybody from seeing the interview. And so far, theyre succeeding in that objective. Should the government be doing something directly to try to cause this film to be seen as widely as possible. It seems to me in the extreme case, the government could seize the film by eminent domain. Allowing the government to take intangible property for various purposes. Why doesnt the government just take the movie, put it up on government websites, broadcast it on pbs, show it at the kennedy center. And force americans to watch it at the same time. Yeah, the notion of the United States government forcing everybody to watch a seth rogen movie is mind boggling. And, you know, i dont know thats the business you want your government in. What you want the government to do is you want the government to protect peoples right to express themselves and to see things and make their own choices. So that means protecting the streets, it means protecting the homeland. It means making sure that foreign governments cant mess with our way of life here in the United States. And right now, North Koreans or whomever seeks to launch an attack, theyre not sure what the u. S. Is going to do. And right now, the message that the u. S. Is sending is maybe it wont be so much. Imagine in kim jongun gets the message going away from this that he now has the ability to extend his censorship rights which are strong in pyongyang all the way to l. A. Thats something i cant imagine he in his wildest dreams may have thought he couldve done a couple of years ago, but its right there and right now. Well, we already lets say dont have the best relationship with north korea. But i would say this strains it to a whole other level of antagonism. What can the government at this point actually do to further punish north korea . Well, there are a set of tools theyve got. The ability to do additional sanctions. Im not sure how much pressure that would be since the North Koreans have a lot of sanctions on them. And since the regime doesnt much care how squeezed the people are. But thats there. We have the ability to identify perpetrators, and we have the ability to undertake legal action against them. Thats what we did with the chinese. Theyre never going to be prosecuted. It does make them persona non grata around the world. Weve got the ability to work with other governments to isolate the North Koreans in other areas, make it difficult to trade in dollars and that kind of thing. That has an impact. We have an ability to say that we will reserve the right to strike back. However, we think it is appropriate, including a Cyber Response. I think thats a critical thing we need to keep, you know, on the table. Its certainly there when somebody strikes out against us with force. We are not sure what happens in this new age of cyber warfare. And i think, perhaps most important of all is to take whichever of these things the government is comfortable with and make a clear announcement of how the u. S. Will respond and what the lengths the u. S. Will go to to protect u. S. People and corporations. Freedom of expression and other things we value. I mean, thats the big take away here. When did we make it okay for other nations . North korea to dictate our own policies here at home, david, i think it was the wrong move by sony. Thank you as always for being with us. We appreciate it. Its my pleasure. Up next, breaking news this afternoon of a big blow to isis by u. S. Forces. We have got the details. Plus, cubans and americans react to the change of the u. S. Relationship. Emotions are running high for and against the shift. Out with the old, in with the new, time will tell us what to expect in 2015. Its still 2014 right now. It is . And its thursday, december 18th. The cycle rolls on. [ female announcer ] youve tried to forget your hepatitis c. But you shouldnt forget this. Hepatitis c is a serious disease. Left untreated, it can lead to liver damage and potentially liver cancer. But you havent been forgotten. Theres never been a better time to rethink your hep c. Go to hepchope. Com to register for more information. Then talk to your doctor about scientific advances that may help you move on from hepatitis c. Then talk to your doctor about scientific advances looking for one of these . Yoplait. Smooth, creamy, and craved by the whole family. Try zyrtecd® to powerfully clear your blocked nose and relieve your other allergy symptoms. So you can breathe easier all day. Zyrtecd®. Find it at the pharmacy counter. Feon brand name mattress sets. Years interestfree financing plus, get free delivery, and sleep trains 100day low price guarantee. Sleep trains interest free for 3 event ends sunday. Your ticket to a better nights sleep breaking news this hour, new details in a big victory against isis. U. S. Air strikes have killed three top militants of that group. Nbc news chief pentagon correspondent has the details. Jim . Krystal, these are by no means household names to any americans outside the intelligence or military communities. But nevertheless, officials here at the pentagon consider this a significant victory in the u. S. Led air war against isis there in iraq. Based on intelligence, there were three separate air strikes launched and targeted. These three individuals to include the deputy to the leader of isis. It included abd al basit, the top commander, and rodwin talib, under the control of isis fighters. Now, u. S. Officials say this is a significant victory, but acknowledge, look, its only a temporary one, temporary setback for isis. There are plenty of isis fighters in the wings willing to accept up. They may not be as qualified, but there is willingness to step up and take over those positions. But nevertheless, these strikes are considered significant because in a war where progress has been hard to define, these are the first targets, individuals, specifically tracked down, targeted, and taken out by the u. S. Military. So in those terms, this is considered a big win by folks here at the pentagon. Krystal . Important developments there. Thank you so much. And now to another story that continues to grab headlines both here and abroad. The United States opening up a dialogue with cuba. A country thats been one of our fiercest enemies now for half a century. Streets of Little Havana in miami tell the story. Some celebrating a new beginning. Most of us that have our family members there have, had a hard time trying to visit them, to get in touch with them. And i i dont think the embargoes actually worked. So i think hopefully this will bring new change. While others typically of the older generation denouncing it as president obama bowing to a brutal dictatorship. I think its a terrible mistake. Obama has given in to basically whats an act of terrorism and racketeering. Its a practice of the castro brothers and the dictatorship to do things like extortion, taking hostages, which is what alan gross was. Cnbcs Michelle Carusocabrera has made her way to cuba. Shes in havana for us. Reporter it was a muted reaction here in cuba to the announcement made simultaneously by president obama in the u. S. And the leader of cuba, raul castro. No major rallies planned, where thousands of people will be bussed into the city center from across the country, like we have seen in the past where they have to listen to hours worth of speeches. Though, we did see a small group of University Students last night cheer the return of the spies that have been released from the u. S. Prison and sent back to cuba. What cubans here are telling me is they want to see whether this change in policy is going to lead to a better economy, the country desperately needs a better economy, its been devastated by socialism and left its policies here. And they also want to see whether or not theres going to be an ability to see family theyve been split from for so long. So many people have escaped from this island through the decades and the policies announced by president obama, they hope, will mean that theyll be able to see their family members more often and more easily. Krystal, back to you. Michelle in havana, thank you so much. And the divide over the president s announcement isnt just limited to cubans and cuban americans, of course, its led to pretty strange bedfellows. Bob menendez is blasting the president saying that he vindicated the human rights abuses of the castros. Meanwhile, the chamber of commerce hailed the president s decision. Yes, you heard that right. 4 out of 5 americans alive have never known a free cuba. Will anything that just happened change that . Joining us now is the Deputy Director of the Latin America Center at the Atlantic Council. Thanks for being with us. Thanks, krystal. You seem like the guy to ask. Ill throw out there the 1 million question. Do you think this represents a first step and were going to see further opening and changes on the ground in cuba, or not . Excellent question, krystal. Yesterdays announcement wases a an historic day for the relations. And frankly for our relations with latin america and even broadly across the world. I mean, the president basically did pretty much most everything he could do under his executive Authority Still in place to be able to open up with cuba. The travel, the remittences, the banking, the reestablishing diplomatic relations, the beginning of the process to remove him from the terrorism list. Not just critical first steps, but critical, second, third, fourth steps for a for a relationship with cuba that has long been defined by adversarial and now will be a relationship more about exchange of information and collaboration, i hope. Jason, a lot of people have been comparing this to president nixons choice to go to china in 1972. Interaction has led to enormous on the ground change in the lives of ordinary chinese people. What do you think this means for the people of cuba . And what is it likely to do to life in that country . Well, this is this announcement, look, weve had a policy for the last 50 years that has failed, right . I mean, the policy of regime change clearly hasnt worked. The castro brothers remain in power after over 50 years. Its time to try something new. And the policy of isolation has left cubans in a more destitute state than before. And the idea is that opening up cuba, by having access to new telecommunications, to internet, to more u. S. Travelers, to more money flowing to cuban small businesses, this will only increase the pressure on the castro regime for change. Look, theyve used the embargo for the last 50 years as the response to why things dont work in cuba. And now, as obama has begun to peel back the critical elements of our of our embargo, the castros are losing one of their greatest assets for defending their regime. And jason, you have older generations that very much remember those terrible days in cuba. And as we showed in the lead for the segment, theres a real generational divide between the older generations and young people. If you ask them how they feel or look at the polling, theyre very much in support of advancing relations with cuba. They want to start a new chapter. Why is this . Why is there such a deep divide . Is it simply because the young people dont remember those days . Yeah, look. The older generation, many of which came over in the 1960s and left their families behind, left their houses behind, had property confiscated by the castro government. And so, they rightfully, you know, have a vehement hatred toward the castro government. Any type of engagement with the government. The Younger Generation realizes our policy of the last five decades hasnt worked. You look at polling, it shows that nearly 90 of 18 to 29yearold cuban americans think that we should