>> i think the standard diplomatic maneuvering you see. a diplomatic option talks and negotiations have no compelling case made for them unless a threat of something else if that doesn't yield something. i think part of this is posturing on the part of h.r. mcmaster and nikki haley and the president saying if you don't come to the table for serious talks, if we can't negotiate on this then a price to be paid and it's going to be paid sooner rather than later. the problem is the president has been very sort of rash in his rhetoric on this and heard the comments he made last month. it's not totally clear whether they thought through the implications of going this military route, of having it be more than a bluff, more than just a threat. >> they haven't specified what it is, really. is it a conventional military option? do they have to do preemptive strike to use the missile defense capacities that they have out in the pacific to shoot one of these missile tests out of the sky? is it something else entirely? is it something that would be a coalition of options?