[Isha Sesay, Cnn Anchor:] Hello and welcome to CNN NEWSROOM L.A. I'm Isha Sesay.
[John Vause, Cnn Anchor:] And I'm John Vause. Our breaking news this hour, North Korea threatening a military strike on the U.S. territory of Guam; in a show of force, Monday, U.S. bombers based on the island, flew over the Peninsula. Pyongyang calls that a provocation, and is also warning Washington: any signs preparing an attack, and the U.S. mainland would be turned into a theater of nuclear war.
[Sesay:] On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump took a break from his working vacation at his golf club in New Jersey to deliver an alarming message to Pyongyang.
[Donald Trump, President Of The United States:] North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal safety. And as I said, they will be with fire, fury, and frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.
[Sesay:] Well, let's get right to the Korean Peninsula. And CNN's Alexandra Field is live in Seoul, South Korea. Alexandra, good to see you. President Trump's comment is being taken at face value or rather seen as classic Trump bombast. I mean, what's the reaction there?
[Alexandra Field, Cnn International Correspondent:] Look, officially, the focus from the region, from various
[Sesay:] A situation to watch closely. Alexandra Field, there in Seoul, South Korea. Always appreciate it, thank you.
[Vause:] Well, to our panel now. Senior Advisor to the nuclear disarmament group N Square, Paul Carroll; Director of the U.S.-China Institute at the USC, Clayton Dube; Politico Senior Reporter, David Siders; and CNN's Senior Reporter for Media and Politics, Dylan Byers. Thank you all for being with us.
[Sesay:] Hello, everyone.
[Vause:] Paul, to you, list down off with the president said, you know, we don't normally hear a U.S. president talking in these terms. Normally, the strategy is to lower the temperature. So, is this fire and fury threat that we're hearing from Donald Trump, is this everything in more than the regime in Pyongyang could have hoped for? Doesn't this simply confirm what they've been saying about the United States for years?
[Paul Carroll, Senior Advisor, N Square:] Well, it does, unfortunately. It plays into their own narrative, not only on the international stage but domestically. I mean, even though it's a dictatorship, Kim Jong- un and his leadership, does have to satisfy and even mobilize and sort of excite the North Korea population. So, in one sense, Donald Trump's statement plays exactly into that narrative. But in another sense, it does confuse of puzzle our allies. Despite what we're hearing from Seoul, you know, well, that's the American president, that's classic Trump. Nonetheless, it is a line, it's a rhetorical line, and so will we back it up? If we do, that's real trouble. That's a war. If we don't, credibility is diminished. So, if none of these situations that I see this is being a good thing on what the president said. What would be positive now is some type of diplomacy, some type of message to North Koreans that, hey, let's talk about options, let's talk about things that we can do to ratchet thing out?
[Sesay:] All right. Clayton Dube, to you next. You and Paul Carroll make the point that rhetorical lines are being drawn here. If you're sitting in Beijing if you're in the leadership, what are you thinking? I mean, how are reading all of this, bearing in mind the U.S. has long been looking for China to solve the North Korea problem?
[Clayton Dube, Director, U.s.-china Institute At The Usc:] Well, Beijing ordinarily expects for the response from Washington to be measured, clear, precise, and it doesn't expect Washington to match Pyongyang bombast word for word. And so, this is a puzzlement both to potential adversaries and to long-standing allies. The people who are most upset by this are the people of South Korea. They're the ones that are truly on the firing line. And they are the ones that would suffer first if there were to be any kind of conflict, and so the Chinese are trying to take their measure of the United States. And we are proving to be a puzzle rather than operating clearly and in a measured way.
[Vause:] Well, there is a, obviously, confusion out there, there are also a lot of criticism out there of the statement by the president. Senator John McCain, one of the main lawmakers who's weighed in on this. Listen to what he said.
[Sen. John Mccain  Arizona:] The great leaders that I have seen, they don't threaten unless they are ready to act, and I'm not sure that President Trump is ready to act. And so, maybe it'll turn out all right, he's the president, I'm not. But I don't think that some of the great leaders that I've admired would've taken that same path. I just don't think that's the way you attack an issue and challenge like this. It's not terrible in what he said but it's kind of classic Trump, he overstates things, you know. The Presidents and leadership that I admire, that I've had anything to do with would not have said that.
[Vause:] All right. So, Dylan, you know, it's essentially become it's muted criticism about the silly, stinging criticism of Trump.
[Dylan Byers, Cnn Senior Reporter For Media And Politics:] Yes, absolutely. And look, I think the other issue here is: A. you have to actually have a plan to attack if you're going to make statements like that; B. it's a question of understanding what the role of the president is in the world. Historically, if you think about this as a school yard, because right now it feels like Pyongyang and Washington are two kids in a school yard going after each other yes, or kindergarten. You know, historically, the president of the United States has seen himself bulked in an almost supervisor role of the rest of the world understanding that there are multiple facets at play, understanding that China's at play, that Japan is at play, South Korea is at play. Also, understanding that it is your role, as the president of the United States, to tone down the rhetoric; this President Obama did this to a point that he got criticized for it. But right now, it feels like has blinders on and he's just looking straight at Kim Jong- un and trying to match him at his game. And I don't understand the end game that particularly, as Senator McCain said, you actually don't have a plan in place.
[Sesay:] Dave Siders, you know, we have the president inflaming the situation. We have the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, trying to bring the temperature down, opening the door to the possiblity of talks. And you heard Clayton Dube saying, if you're Beijing, this is a puzzle, excuse me, that the U.S. positioned. Why can't this administration get on the same page? Why can't they get a message, and why when it comes to North Korea?
[David Siders, Senior Reporter, Politico:] Well, I think it's not just North Korea. I mean
[Sesay:] Well, yes, don't you think of North Korea right now?
[Siders:] Administration from a get-go. But I think the problems are the same, and this is really a test may be of John Kelly. Did he know about the statement? Was he did he advise the president not to say that, and then was turned down? If he didn't know, why not? I mean, all reporting from colleagues in Washington says that they don't that this vetted through the State Department. So, you wonder who knew about the statement, he didn't say the words twice, right? So, maybe somebody else did. And what level of consultation was there? And if not, I think some people who just following this president on how the message will be very concerned about how he does that.
[Byers:] If I can just say one quick point about message though, CNN had a poll just a few days ago, basically found that 75 percent, three-quarters of American citizens, don't feel like they can trust what's coming out of the White House, which is staggering the lack of credibility there. I think on the world stage, particularly when you start talking about diplomats, about military officials in all of these countries that are involved in what's going on with Pyongyang right now. I think they're similar skepticism. And I think they look at that as traditional Trump being Trump, Kim Jong-un being Kim Jong-un, and they understand that the people are ultimately going to decide what's going here, are the people around them. And I think those are there's a little bit of solace in that if any solace can be found.
[Vause:] Maybe a tiny bit but not
[Carroll:] I think the point made about sort of the adult supervisors in the U.S. administration is a very good one. We have several people in this administration that are military commanders, and the president seems to respect and to those commanders. Those are the ones that, again, I would home deliver clearly the message of the implications about what war would be. What Senator Feinstein said, I think, is also incredibly important. The U.N. Security Council sanctions that we passed, present actually quite a remarkable opportunity; it was swift, it was unanimous. It's all the regional power including Russia and China on the same page in a way we haven't since the second-half of the Bush administration. When we had followed on talks, we had several albeit failed, but several times when all of the six parties of the six party talks were in fact in unison. On paper, we have that today, and so that's the sticks. The sticks are all sort of marching to the same drummer. What we don't have is a well-defined menu of carrots, of incentives, of enticements for the North Koreans to get that to the table. So, the short answer to your questions: if were Kim Jong-un and obviously in Pyongyang, I would think, I don't hear a lot of offering acts. I hear a lot of hammers, but I don't hear a lot of options for me to gracefully, and with face and with confidence, talk to these people and get something out of it.
[Sesay:] And David, back to you. Last week, National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, made it clear that the president was not prepared to deal with the threat of North Korea with nuclear weapons. Take a listen to what he said.
[Gen. H.r. Mcmaster, National Security Advisor:] They have nuclear weapons that get through the United States; it's intolerable from the president's perspective. So, of course, we have to provide all options to do that, and that includes a military option.
[Sesay:] Well, David, isn't it the reality, at least, you know, looking to the recent reporting from the Washington Post that we're getting the new reality of North Korea's nuclear program and where it stands? Isn't it just the fact that the U.S. might have to live with that reality?
[Siders:] But they are they're so, I mean, that they have that nuclear capability. I think it's I think most analyst that I talked to today and yesterday, say if not this year, then, or next year. This is just a matter of time, right, so within a couple of years. And I think the risk is not necessarily that we have a premeditated pre-emptive strike from Donald Trump and advisor for making a decision. But there's something escalates is these
[Vause:] McMaster also said in that interview that, you know, North Korea is a global threat which requires a global solution. And we've seen there is zero support for what Donald Trump has been suggesting with his fire and fury comment.
[Dube:] That's correct. The Chinese have said that this kind of language, these kinds of threatcounter-threat don't move us forward in any way. And so, I'd just like to echo what has been said, the U.N. sanctions are significant; China bought into that. And so, that is mobilizing the international community to isolate North Korea even further than it already is. And that is probably the only course that we have available to us that and the sure deterrence.
[Sesay:] Dylan, quickly to you. You made the point that it's politically expedient to talk more at times of, you know, has sagging political fortunes. Given the poll numbers being what they are for President Trump, do you see this kind of rhetoric continuing?
[Byers:] Up to a point. You know, at a certain point, this goes back to a question that John asked earlier about the president putting himself in a box. You can only make so many threats and make so many promises before you have to actually follow through on something. I think what's going on with this you know, the saber rattling for Trump is critically expedient because it takes attention away from some of the negative stories. The saber rattling that's going on with Pyongyang is convenient because it fulfills this narrative that Kim Jong-un is sort of protecting his people against this great, terrible threat that is the United States. Obviously, the remarks from Trump play into that narrative. You know, I think it just points back one thing I see here is, I don't see a reason why Kim Jong-un wants to go to war. He's pilfering his country. He's enjoying the spoils of that. Why does he want to fire and burns down Korea down, which I'm sure he understands America is capable of doing. For Trump, I'm a little more worried. I actually understand why it becomes so politically expedient to go to war, because that does satisfy so many people who start to believe that North Korea is a problem that's, you know, a needle in America's side, and we should do something about it.
[Vause:] Clayton, just a really short with you. Is there a concern, you know, within Beijing that, you know, Donald Trump, you know, he got a big loss in the polls when he launched 59 missiles in Syria. You know, he did that while Xi Jinping was at Mar-a-Lago. It was one of the impressive moment for the president. That maybe, you know, he's this as a way of, you know, boosting his standing at home and around the world.
[Dube:] Leaders have to worry about just that. They have to worry that the impulse to take actions, to be seen as a strong leader, and action-oriented person, that wanting to do that might push him into something like this. But the Chinese are very clear that everybody losses if there's any kind of outbreak of violence on the Korean Peninsula. We have the Korean economy obviously at risk, the Chinese economy at risk, the Japanese economy at risk we are talking World War
[Iii. Vause:] Just very quickly, Clayton, would China back North Korea if there was any kind of confrontation?
[Dube:] Not that they would necessarily back North Korea. The problem has been described. Once you have military action, all sorts of things can happen. And that the Chinese may see this as an encroachment, and they may see some sort of necessary action to stand up to American power.
[Vause:] OK. OK, Clayton, we'll leave it there. But thank you all very much. Clayton, Paul, and David, and Dylan here with us here in the studio thank you all for a very enlightening discussion. Thank you.
[Dube:] Thank you.
[Sesay:] Thanks, all. More on our breaking news after the break; why possible North Korea mini nuke could drastically change the nuclear standoff with the U.S.