Should recognize three administrations have failed to do that. Glor we continue with a look ahead to the g20 summit in hamburg, germany and President Trumps meeting with russian president putin. Were joined by nicholas burns, former undersecretary of state for george w. Bush. When you look at meetings like this, and this is the first meeting 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 there is a crisis or even on money dain issues, they can communicate effectively on behalf of their own two countries. But these summits are always grated by other countries in this case americas european allies and they will be watching to see if the white house spokesperson sean spicer says ukraine was raised. If President Trump doesnt raise ukraine, there is going to be a liance because those countries are depending on us to support them on that issue. Glor we conclude with the director Sofia Coppola who talked to Stephanie Zackarek about the new film, the beguiled. I try to think about the pef film and think about how i would make this film. And the premise to me was so kind of loaded and juicy but fun to look at things about men and women and dynamics between women but in this kind of over the top setting. Glor north korea, the g20 and Sofia Coppola when we continue. Rose funding for charlie rose has been provided by the following and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Glor dwood evening, im jeff glor sitting in for charlie rose who is traveling. We begin tonight with north korea. On tuesday pyongyang announced it tested a new intercontinental ballistic analysts say has the potential to reach alaska. North koreas leader kim jungun was a fourth of july gift to the United States. The Trump Administration has said the u. S. Would use the full range of capabilities at our disposal against the growing threat. But experts warn the options available to washington are few and risky. Joining me now from washington anne gearan, Foreign Policy and politics correspondent for the washington post. And from cambridge, graham allison, the Douglas Dillon professor of government at harvard. Welcome to both of you. Anne let me start with you, and what has been discussed a great deal now and the lack of good options for the administration. Yeah, i mean theyre really are basically no options that havent 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 frawt and so unlikely as to really be, you know, 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 endanger 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 at sea, u. S. Forces stationed elsewhere in asia. So a military response by this administration is really, really risky. And certainly something that trumps advisors would be warning him off of. And beyond that, you have a variety of economic and dip lo diplomatic pressure tactics that have already been tried with really limited success or no success at all. Glor graham, whats the best option . Well, if you are choosing among lousy options i think anne gave a reasonable description of them. But i would be not quite so quick to discount the pill tear option. I think trump is new to the party. He tweeted from the first time he ever heard of this, not going to happen. And theres no question the u. S. Can conduct a limited attack on the missile launching sites. And prevent further testing of icbms. So i dont believe thats off the table at all. Even though i agree, that it has highly uncertain consequences. Glor there is a whole list of Different Military options you can take, right, graham but one of the complicating factors here is that north korea is pretty good at moving all of this stuff around. I think the main thing is that this is a chess game in which they get to move as well. So the very limited attack, would attack the launch sites. There are only two. And would prevent any icbm tests. Thats easy to do. The question is what would north cor qua do in response. And most people believe north korea would respond at least by artillery shells against seoul that could kill up to a Million People. And then our response to that would likely produce a second korean war. Now somebody as usually regarded as you know serious as Lindsey Graham has said well, that would be terrible. It would be a war in the Korean Peninsula. But in any case it would not allow north korea to have Nuclear Weapons to be able to attack us. So that is clearly a tomorrowic that is up for discussion even in the senate. Glor and i think that anne, general mattis is on the record saying how awful any sort of military conflict quickly becomes. Yeah, absolutely. I mean mattis and secretary of state tillerson and the White House National security advisor hr mcmases mcmaster are presumed to be arguing for greater sanctions, greater economic pressure on china, basically anything other than any kind of military strike. But graham is right, there is a limited strike option and the, you know, then it just becomes a set of calculations into which intelligence and lots of other factors would feed, about what they think north Korean Leader would do if the say one, 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 the sanctions, oftentimes with chinese knowledge, if not outright help. Glor graham, the president has taken this unusual approach with china. A lot of the communications via twitter suggesting that he put on some sort of heavy move, just in recent days. And then he said well, it didnt work what they did but at least we tried. What is he trying to do with china . Well, i think its pretty clear that from the meeting with xi at maralago to the last tweet hes basically saying to the chinese you can solve this problem. But if you dont solve this problem, we will solve this problem. And well do it by military means. And you wont like that. So basically hes trying to increase the leverage on china to get them to act. I think that anne correct though, that basically this has been the strategy followed by three previous administrations and its 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 it would get people, adults sitting down together saying we have a joint problem here. 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 work down that path, there are a few things they might think about. But i think thats not a conversation that any of the american or chinese governments that ive seen over the last three administrations has been able to have. Well but if they were interested in doing that, what would those options be. I think they would start with the chinese proposition that how about freeze for freeze. So if they could persuade north korea to freeze icbm tests, could we freeze current joint operations, military exercises with north with south korea. The americans always say no, no, no, were not giving up anything. This is for defensive purposes, blah, blah, blah, but the answer is yes, you could imagine that. Well, now you take the next step. I have certainly had conversations with very high level chinese, recently, when i was in beijing just last week about my new book. Basically they say wait a minute, do they have any affection for kim jungun, not at all. They call him a brat. Would they be happy to take him out if they could figure out a way to replace him, yes, they would. Could we start working on that jointly together, maybe, maybe. So i would say looking down the path, i do not believe theres a destination that at least i can see realistic clea that would involve the elimination of all north korean Nuclear Weapons. That would require something that i have not been able to work my way through. But certainly a cessation of the further advance that will give them the cap ability capability to deliver Nuclear Weapons to San Francisco or los angeles. I think is within reach. Glor and San Francisco would be the likely First Destination on the west coast, at least, outside of alaska. San francisco, seattle and l. A. , yeah. And is there any more leverage there about potentially increasing the number of military exercises in south korea . Yeah, sure. I mean and frankly, the u. S. Has appeared to try to do a bit of this in the last couple of months. Any show of force off the Korean Peninsula makes the North Koreans go nuts. And kind of ratchets up the pressure, really on them to either do something, to show their displeasure or potentially to not, you know, to slow down and not launch as many missile tests. So far it appears to have had the opposite effect that one would think the Trump Administration intends. And that North Koreans have only increased the frequent see of their tests. I think theyre trying to show something through the frequent see of those tests that no amount of u. S. Show of force off the coast is really likely to affect. And that, 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 than people had predicted just a couple of years ago. And they clearly want to show that and they want to see what they can get for it. Can you talk about this missile a little bit. This was mostly a vertical launch, right. But in terms of the distance, it could cover now or in the future. If you do the math and you work out what goes up, what must come down and stretch out the tra jectory, you get something that could potentially reach alaska. Its not clear totally that it would. And from there it, you know, its less of a technical feat to get something that could reach the large u. S. Cities on the west coast. And from there, then the task is to attach a viable Small Nuclear device that still does a lot of damage. And make sure that it can survive reent vee. All of those things that technical, all those things are possible and again the North Koreans have appeared to be moving faster along that path than many people had thought they would. Still not totally clear that they can get there. It is tech it is chilling. It is chilling. What most americans havent really awakened to, is over the last 20 years, north korea has built Nuclear Weapons, there is no debate about that. North korea has developed short range missiles that can deliver Nuclear Warheads against south korea. There is no debate in the intelligence exeument about that. North korea has developed Medium Range Missiles that can deliver Nuclear Weapon heads against japan, and now its just got a couple move steps to take including the one yesterday that theyre going to give it the ability to attack american cities, with Nuclear Weapons. On the one hand that steams completely nuts. On the other hand bringing out a way to prevent it is also extremely difficult. And we should recognize three administrations have failed to do that. And i served in the clinton administration, i was in favor as was secretary of defense perry in 1994 of attacking north korea then. Clinton ultimately said no. I still think in retrospect that is what we should is done am but even at the time, of course they didnt have Nuclear Weapons at the time. This would have prevented them having them. Even at the time we new we were running a risk of triggering a second korean war. Do you think the u. S. Should attack now. I think now that they have Nuclear Weapons, i believe such an attack would run too great a risk of a use of Nuclear Weapons against south korea or japan. And then i i think that would be a second korean war. And i believe that would ultimately end in a war between the u. S. And china that could be ultimately catastrophic for both of us. So i am more in the position that i think secretary mattis hs been testifying regularly that if we have a war in the Korean Peninsula, god forbid t will be the bloodiest war that any americans have ever seen, back to the first korean war. And we should remember in the first korean war, china entered the war and beat us back down the peninsula to the 38th parallel where the war had begun. And in that war we lost 50,000 americans and the chinese lost several 100,000 people. Glor it can get apocalyptic to talk about, anne, but if not attack or some sort of military action, it brings you back to the same question of sanctions which havent worked. Yeah, i mean sanctions and related economic pressure which, an there all roads lead to and through china. And all those things have been tried, it clarily sanctions have not prevented the North Koreans from developing a Nuclear Weapon and a very successful Ballistic Missile program. Despite the fact that the sanctions that many of the sanctions specifically target components and technology that would go into those products. So theyre getting the stuff from somewhere. Theyre getting it despite sanctions. Theres a black market for everything and they clearly have figured out how to use it. So if sanctions arent going to work or work well enough, if theyre 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 the prospect of war or you know some kind of regime change that china doesnt manage. They dont want any of those things. So its going to be a hard conversation. Graham, the new south Korean Administration has talked a lot about trying to talk about this. Is there anything there . Well, i think the conversation with moon, the new south korean president and trump must have 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 already 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 he worked earlier that basically talking to north korea will be some way of dealing with the problem. I think thats likely to be no more successful than his predecessor was but i think thats the argument that will go on. And i think its conceivable to me that moon will persuade trump that any case he can try to see and i think if he were able to have such a conversation, its possible he could get kim jungun to delay icbm tests if kim jungun thought the alternative was really going to be a war. But trying to make credible to kim jungun that there could be a war, given how horrible that war could be, as anne said, that is hard to make credible to ourselves. So the option doesnt seem very attractive and if that option is not a real option, why should kim jungun not continue his testing program, it worked for him in the past. Glor and even if you delay, apologiesk graham, even if you delay and there is still the inexorable path toward eventual Nuclear Accumulation of multiple devices for north korea, and ability to get it farther. One of the hard things to remember is that every day north korea is producing more Nuclear Material for more nuclear bombs. Glor this is gt to going to reverse. No, its certainly not. Its pretty clear that North Koreans leaders ultimate goal here is to have a weapon in 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, a way that he could force a President Trump, assume assuming that this all could be done in the life span of a trump presidency, whoever the u. S. Leader is, to say all right, you know, check mate. Theres nothing you can do here so give me a security guarantee that says i can stay in power. Will you never try to affect regime change, and youll leave me alone and whatever else that they could put on the table. And that is why direct u. S. North korean diplomacy now is in the minds of a lot of people including some of trumps advisors, you know, pretty far fetched or