North Korea's Advancing Nuclear Capabilities
REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: If true, it represents the greatest crisis probably since -- let me rephrase that -- undoubtedly since the Cuban missile crisis. And the correlation is very similar. This is something that can hit us and our allies, and it's with a rogue nation that we suspect would use it.</s>CAMEROTA: Well, the escalating rhetoric between the U.S. and North Korea has many drawing comparisons to the Cuban missile crisis, but not our next guest. Let's talk about it with CNN's Global Affairs Analyst, Aaron David Miller. He's also the author of The End of Greatness. Aaron, great to see you this morning. I'll read the tweet you sent out yesterday about this, "Idea that we're on the verge of nuclear war or this is the Cuban missile crisis is absurd. But Houston, we do have a problem, intemperate rhetoric, North Korean nukes." How do you see it?</s>AARON DAVID MILLER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I mean, you know, certain historical parallels are often, you know, critically important to sum it up. And I think it was Mark Twain who said that history doesn't repeat, it rhymes. So you look for the rhythmic patterns. Yes, there's tension. If, in fact, there was a confrontation, a military confrontation between the United States, South Korea, Japan on the Korean peninsula, it would be worse than the Cuban missile crisis and it would be a catastrophe. But it's not the Cuban missile crisis now. We don't have ICBMs stationed 90 miles away. The continents -- the great continent with United States right now is not threatened. This is not --</s>CAMEROTA: But how do you know that? I mean the thinking is that maybe one of their missiles can hit the mainland of the</s>U.S. MILLER: No, I don't want to trivialize the threat at all. But just take the Guam issue. I mean they've been threatening Guam now for years and they have intermediate range missiles that could probably reach Guam. Do they have -- have they perfected a reentry system? Could they cause damage? I don't want to trivialize the threat. But on the other hand, I don't want to exacerbate it and create a kind of panic to some degree that was reflected in the President's rhetoric yesterday. Now is the time for reassurance, it's time for cool, calculated moves and a possible strategy. In large part, Alisyn, because look at the options. Sanctions will not work. You're not going to alter Kim Jong-un's behavior, no matter how punishing they may be. And they don't put oil --</s>CAMEROTA: Well, then I mean why is the Security Council, you know, the U. S. Security Council going that route? I mean if that's hopeless and that's just a futile exercise, then where does that leave us?</s>MILLER: I mean it's part of the package. It's necessary perhaps, but not sufficient. Sanctions isn't going to work. I don't think. If working means bringing Kim Jong-un and the regime to its knees on nuclear weapons, that's not going to work. So then you're left with the default position. You contract to China and China is an important player. But China cannot give Kim Jong-un what he wants. Only we can do that. And finally, military options, which as Hertling and Kirby said in eloquent and compelling fashion, it's huge risk right now. That leads to the default position and the default position is some kind of dialogue, at least, to try to diffuse the rhetoric.</s>CAMEROTA: Yeah.</s>MILLER: Back channel, discreet, to test the proposition, Alisyn, that, in fact, there is a diplomatic solution to this. I'm not entirely persuaded there is. But not to pursue it, as long as he isn't dead because frankly, we haven't really tried it.</s>CAMEROTA: Yes, they're in. Look, North Korea is the one saying our nuclear program is not on the table. So how does that -- where does diplomacy start with that position?</s>MILLER: I mean diplomacy needs urgency, but it also needs an outcome that's going to find a balance of interest. And frankly, on this one, there is nobody in this city, there is nobody in this country, there's nobody in this world right now that can reconcile the reality that this administration and its predecessor, particularly this one, wants denuclearization. They want to basically wish North Korea as a nuclear power away, and the fact is that is no going to happen. On the other hand, over time, five, ten years over time if, in fact, Kim gets what he wants, maybe it's possible to see a rollback. But right now, we're talking about diffusing and preempting the prospects of confrontation and maybe beginning to set of confidence building measures, some sort of freeze on production, testing, and some mutual, symmetrical freeze on the part of the United States on actions that Kim fears --</s>CAMEROTA: Yes.</s>MILLER: -- in an effort to set this in a much more stable mode.</s>CAMEROTA: But when you say what Kim Jong-un wants, what is that in a sentence?</s>MILLER: You know, the guy is, what, in his 30s? Conceivably, he could be running this place for the next 50 years. Maybe he wants a modified China model. Maybe he wants to seek the economic development of North Korea. Maybe he wants the end to prospects of regime change and the environment in which he -- and look, I'm not painting -- I'm not working for this guy. This is a despotic regime --</s>CAMEROTA: Yes.</s>MILLER: -- serial human rights abuser. Look what they did to that poor kid, Oliver Warmbier.</s>CAMEROTA: Otto.</s>MILLER: I mean that's not the point. The point is can we find a way to deescalate --</s>CAMEROTA: Yes.</s>MILLER: -- and test the proposition that in fact, some modus operandi with the North Koreans can be found.</s>CAMEROTA: OK. Aaron David Miller, we always appreciate talking to you. Thanks so much for being here.</s>MILLER: Thank you, Alisyn.</s>WEIR: Leakers are a threat to the democracy, so says the Trump White House. So then how do they explain President Trump retweeting a Fox News story containing leaked classified information? Our media experts are here to discuss next.