Assumption that there is a price somehow for which kim jongun and his predecessor, his father and his grandfather, would give up this Nuclear Program. Im not sure thats right because the Nuclear Program, to their mind, is the one thing that guarantees their survival. And the moment that they give it up, theyre in the position that Mow Mar Qaddafi was in when he gave up his nas entitle Nuclear Program in 2003. And he got a lot of promises of integration with the west and of course as soon as his people turned on him, the United States and europe and the arab states all joined in to drive him from power. The koreans were very, very aware of this and i would doubt that there is a price out there for which they would give up everything. And therein lies the big problem. Let me go to you, ambassador. We tend to look at this through our own eyes, thinking like, why in the world would anyone want to risk being even using the artillery on the southern border
north korea. As others said if they
north korea. as others said if they give up their nuclear weapons, what s to stop south korea or the united states from somehow invading north korea. they want those guarantees. the second thing is that we have long said that we re not going to even talk with north korea diplomatically unless they first give up their nuclear program. well, that hasn t worked so maybe we need to sit down and see immediately and see what we can do to move forward. howard, that also brings us a little to david s point. if there is nothing to get them diplomatically to give up their weapons, there s nothing we can offer them if they re not going to do it, they re not going to do it. and is it just sort of a cat and mouse game? we don t have to worry about them using the artillery on the southern border against seoul? i see that as the more imminent danger. that s definitely tactically strategically what they do with their nuclear arms. this is a pattern donald trump certainly won t like. the iran