Correspondent for the washington post. And graham allison, the Douglas Dillon professor of government at harvard. Welcome to both of you. And, let me start with you what has been discussed a great deal now in the lack of good options for the administration. Anne yeah, i mean, there really are basically no options that have not been tried before, unless you want to go the military route, which trump has pointedly not taken off the table. But which is so, so fraught and so unlikely as to really be kind of functionally moot. Any conventional strike against north korea risks either an overwhelming conventional response that would undoubtedly kill south korean civilians and could in danger really thousands if not millions of people, or north korea, since it does possess Nuclear Weapons and the ability to deliver them at short range, could choose to use them against south korea, japan, u. S. Ships, u. S. Forces stationed elsewhere in asia. So, a military response by this administration is really, really risky, and so is something that trumps advisers would be warning him off of her beyond that, you have a variety of economic and diplomatic pressure tactics that have already been tried with really limited success for no success at all. Jeff what is the best option . Gave a i think anne reasonable description of them. I would be not so quick to discount the military option. I think that trump is new to the party. He tweeted from the first time he ever heard of this, not going to happen. There is no question the u. S. Can conduct a limited attack on the missile launching site and prevent further testing of icbms. So, i do not believe that is off the table at all, even though i agree that it has highly uncertain consequences. Jeff there is a whole list of Different Military options you can take, but one of the comp locating factors is that north korea is pretty good at moving all of this stuff around. Thing is thatin this is a chess game in which they get to move as well. So, a very limited attack would attack the launch sites, their only two, and prevent any icbm test. That is easy to do. The question is what would north korea do in response . An most people believe north korea would respond by artillery shells againstd seoul that could kill one million people. And our response to that would likely produce the second korean war. As usuallyody regarded as serious as lindsey that would bed, terrible. It would be a war on the Korean Peninsula but it would not allow north korea to have Nuclear Weapons to be able to attack us. That is clearly a topic that is up for discussion, even in the senate. Jeff and i think that, um, anne, general mattis is on the record saying how awful any sort of military conflict quickly becomes. Anne yeah, absolutely. Secretary of state tillerson and other White House National security advisers h. R. Mcmasters are presumed to be arguing for greater sanctions, greater economic pressure on china. Basically anything other than any kind of military strike, but grahams right, there is a limited strike option. Just becomes a set of calculations into which intelligence and lots of other factors would feed about what they think north korea leader would do if the, say, one or both of the launch sites were taken out. The first option is clearly going to be trying to get more sanctions and trying to increase pressure on china to limit the amount of stuff that gets in around those sanctions. Oftentimes with chinese knowledge, if not outright help. Jim the president has taken this unusual approach with china. A lot of the communications via tweet are suggesting he put on some sort of heavy move. Just in recent days, and then he said well, it did not work but at least we tried. What is he trying to do with china . Graham i think it is pretty clear that from the meeting with isat maralago, he basically saying to the chinese, you can solve this problem. But if you dont solve this problem, we will, and we will do it by military means and you will not like that. So, basically he is trying to increase the leverage on china to get them to act. Correct thatannes this is basically been the strategy followed by three previous administrations, and it has not worked because china is not going to risk the collapse of north korea. So, this is a situation in which what you would wish is that you get people, adults sitting down together saying, we have a joint problem h ere. North korea could drag the two of us into a war. Lets think outside the box of the current options about something that we could do jointly. I think if they were starting to walk down that path, there are few things they might think about. But i think that is not a conversation that nay of t any of the american or chinese governments that i have seen over the last three administrations has been able to have. Jeff but if they were interesting in doing that, what with those options be . Graham they would start with the chinese proposition about freeze for freeze. If they could persuade north tests,o freeze icbm could we freeze military exercises with south korea . The american say, no, we are not giving up anything. This is for defensive purposes, blah, blah. But the answer is yes. Now we take the next step. Ive sorely had conversations with very high level chinese recently ive certainly had conversations when i was in beijing about my book. Basically they say, wait a minute. Do they have any affection for kim jongun . Not at all. They call him a brat. With a be happy to take them out if they could figure out a way to replace him . Yes, they would. Could we start working on that jointly together . Maybe, maybe. I would say looking down the path, i do not believe there is a destination that at least i can see realistically that will involve the elimination of all north korean Nuclear Weapons. That would require something that i am not ready to look to, but certainly a cessation of the giveer advance that would them the capability to deliver Nuclear Weapons against San Francisco or los angeles. I think is within reach. Jeff San Francisco would be the likely First Destination on the west coast . Outside of alaska . Graham San Francisco, seattle and l. A. , yeah. Is there any more leverage their about potentially increasing the number of military exercises in south korea . Anne yeah, sure. Frankly, the u. S. Has appear to try to do a bit of this and the last couple of months. Of force off the Korean Peninsula makes the North Koreans go nuts. And kind ratchets up the pressure really on them to either do something to show their displeasure, or potentially to not to slow down and not launch as man missile test. Yso far, it appears to have had the opposite effect that one woulld think the Trump Administration intends. And the North Koreans have only increased the frequency of their tests. Trying to show something to the frequency of those test that no amount of u. S. Show of force off the coast is really likely to affect. And theyre trying to demonstrate the technical advances that they have achieved over the last couple of years. They are moving more quickly, and more assuredly with fewer mistakes toward a Credible Nuclear Deterrent against the United States. And people have predicted just a couple of years ago. They clearly want to show that anyone to see what they can get for it. Jeff; can you talk about this missile a little bit . This was mostly a vertical launch, right . But in terms of the distance, it could you if you do the math and work out what goes up must come down and stretch out the detector he, the trajectory, you get something that could potentially reach of alaska. Not clear totally that it would. And from there, it is less of a technical feat to get something that could reach the large u. S. Cities on the west coast. And from there, then, that task is to attach a viable Small Nuclear device that still does a lot of damage and make sure that it can survive reentry. All of those things are technical. All of those things are possible. And again, the north koreas have appear to be moving faster along that path than many people had thought they would. Still not totally clear that they can get there. Jeff it is technical but chilling. Graham what most americans have not awaken to over the last 20 years north korea has built Nuclear Weapons north korea has developed short range missiles that can deliver Nuclear Warheads against south korea. There is no debating in the Intelligence Community about that. North korea has developed mediumrange missiles that can deliver Nuclear Warheads against japan. And now its got a couple more stuff to take, including the one yesterday, that could give it the ability to attack American Cities with Nuclear Weapons. On the one hand that seems completely nuts. On the other hand, figuring out a way to prevent it is also extremely difficult. We should recognize three administrations have failed to do that. And i served in the clinton administration. I was in favor, as was secretary ofdefense perry, in 1994 attacking north korea then. Clinton ultimately said no. I still think that is what we should have done. But even at the time, of course, they do not have Nuclear Weapons at the time, this would prevent its having them, even at the time, we knew we were running the risk of a second career in war second korean war. Now that they have Nuclear Weapons, i believe such a ttack would run too great a risk against south korea and japan. And then i think that would be a second korean war. In that would ultimately end a war between the u. S. And china that could be ultimately catastrophic for both of us. Im more in the position that i think secretary mattis has been testifying regularly that if we koreanwar on the peninsula, god for bid, it is going to be the bloodiest war that any americans have ever seen. Back to the first korean war. We should remember in the first korean war china enter the war and beat us back down the peninsula to the 30th parallel. We lost 50,000, americans and the chinese lost several hundred thousand people. Jeff it can get apocalyptic to talk about, anne, but if not attack or some sort of military action that brings you back to the same question of sanctions, which have not worked. Anne yeah, sanctions and related economic pressure, which and there all roads lead to enter china. And all those things have been tried. Clearlys engines have not prevented the North Koreans from developing Nuclear Weapons and a very successful illicit missile program, despite the fact that sanctionsy of the specifically target components and technology that would go into those products. So, they are getting the stuff from somewhere. They are getting it despite sanctions. Theres a black market for everything, and they clearly have figured out how to use it. So, if sanctions are not going to work or work well enough, if they are mostly for show, then really then it becomes a leverage and Pressure Campaign on china, which asks the basic question of what do you want least here . Do you want a Nuclear North Korea with a potentially unstable leader, or do you want youprospect of war or, know, some kind of regime change that china does not manage . They dont want any of those things. It is going to be a hard conversation. Jeff the new south Korean Administration has talked a lot about trying to talk about this. Is there anything there . Graham well, i think the conversation with moon, the new south korean president and trump , mustve been an interesting one because trump is essentially threatening to fight a war on the territory of korea that moon is the president of to prevent north korea being able to do to the u. S. What the u. S. Has allowed north korea to be able to do to south korea. So, that is not a very attractive proposition for him. He believes very much like the administration for whom we worked earlier that basically talking to north korea will be some way of dealing with the problem. I think that is lucky to be no more successful than his predecessor was, but i think that is the argument and i think its conceivable to me that moon will persuade trump that in any case he can try to to and i think if were able have such a conversation, it is possible he could get kim jongun to delay icbm tests. If kim jongun thought the alternative was really going to be a war. But trying to make credible to kim jongun that there could be a war, given how horrible that said,uld be, as anne that is hard to make credible to ourselves. So the option does not seem very attractive. If that option is not a option, why should kim jongun not continue this Testing Program . Its work for him in the past. Jeff apologies. Even if you delay there is still be inexorable path toward eventual nuclear jubilation or multiple devices for north korea. Raham every day north korea is producing more Nuclear Material for more nuclear bombs. Jeff this is not going in reverse, anne . Anne no, its certainly not. It is pretty clear that the north korean leaders ultimate goal here is to have a weapon and the means to deliver it to the United States, not for Immediate Use but to use as a bargaining chip. He sees it as the ultimate leverage, way he can force a President Trump, assuming this all to be done within the lifespan a trump presidency, whoever the leader is, to say, all right, you know, checkmate. Theres nothing you can do here. So give me a security guarantee an stay in power. You will never try to effect regime change. And youll leave me alone, and whatever else they can put on the table. And thats why direct u. S. North korean diplomacy now is in the minds of a lot of people, including some of trumps advisors, pretty farfetched or shortsighted. I mean, they actually walk into that negotiation with a goal and that the u. S. Hand does not really have at this point. Sure, we already have the means to block their country but we are not going to do it. So, the u. S. Handin that negotiation would be essentially to try to stop kim jongun from doing something that he firmly his ultimate bei in benefit. That is a hard bargain for the u. S. To drive. Jeff thank you both very much. Anne thank you. Jeff latest in the Worlds Largest economies will gather in hamburg, germany, for the annual g20 summit. Germany has placed at the top of the agenda financial regulation, womens economic empowerment, and ties with africa. Several Trump Administration policies up at the u. S. At odds with other member countries on issues like trade, climate and immigration. The summit marks the first time President Trump and russian president Vladimir Putin will come facetoface theyre joining me now from providence, rhode island, is nicholas hearns, u. S. Undersecretary for state for Political Affairs for george w. Bush. And is currently professor at Harvards Kennedy school of government. Nick, thank you for being with us. What a you paying attention to the most . This firstnk meeting between President Trump and president putin is going to be very challenging for President Trump. You have in president proving someone who has been in power for 18 years, one of the worlds most experienced leaders, and hes we know that from his kgb pass. There also some challenges for President Trump itte. The two are this. The continuing sanctions of u. S. On ukraine. Very important United States support the europeans and our own policy on this. As you know, President Trump has set several points during his presidency and enter in the camping and submitted he would like to live to those sages but putins done nothing to warn up. Second and most important for President Trump is the fact that putin launched a cyber attack on the american elections in 2016. There has been absolutely no response from President Trump. No investigation by the Trump Administration. No pressure on the russian government. And the center just voted two weeks ago by a 972 margin to put sages on russia over that hacking of our elections. President trump is trying to water down the bill right now. I think this is a real problem for him. Onhe is seen as too sfooft president putin, there will be a problem back home in washington because republicans, not just democrats are gearing up to send russia tough message. So, that an other measures issues, seer is going to be important for this meeting. Jeff the white house has said that the ukraine will not be discussed and there is no guarantee the cyber attack will be discussed. What will be . When you look at meetings like this and this is the very first meeting of the two leaders will ever have had. The primary i think focus should be establishing some kind of Effective Communications between them so that in the future if onre is a crisis or even monday issues, they can communicate effectively on behalf of their own two countries. Ts are alwaysmi graded by other countries. In this case, americans european allies. And they will be watching to see if the