not even to south korea. he told me that if they were going to threaten south korea with any kind of nuclear device, and they probably have about four to eight plutonium devices, he thinks, that would have to be delivered by truck, plane or boat. he does not believe they have the ability to put it on any missiles right now. but they are perhaps working on that in order to deter the united states. wolf? >> fareed, i think these -- this new dia assessment is pretty chilling. but let's get back a little bit to what ban ki-moon told me. he said he would be willing to go to north korea and speak directly with kim jong-un, and when i asked him to speak in korean to the north korean leader, you heard what he had to say. he made that direct appeal. i suspect that kind of gesture is precisely what the north korean leader kim jong-un would like to see, to get that kind of respect, if you will, despite the provocative steps he's taken in recent days. >> oh, clearly this is a search for legitimacy, credibility. but wolf,

and south korea. she told us what american companies did then. >> companies wanted to make sure that they had latest e-mails of all their employees, latest addresses of where everyone lived, and then started looking at supply chains. >> reporter: experts say some americans were evacuated to japan then. most analysts don't think that will happen now, but gm and many other american companies have a lot to lose if tensions escalate or if conflict breaks out between north and south korea. at its five plants in south korea, two of them just outside seoul, gm produces about 1.5 million each year for domestic sale inside south korea and for export to other countries. and according to the u.s. south korea business council, at least 50 american companies either have a presence in south korea or business interests there. there was about $100 billion in two-way trade between the u.s. and south korea last year, and at any given time, there are about 120,000 americans living, working, and traveling in south korea.

south korea and japan and the united states. in order to produce a comprehensive regional solution, the idea was america has limited influence over north korea. if we could harangue north korea into this six-party structure we could bring to bear the pressure of all five of them at once. north korea would rather deal with us directly because in the end that's easier for them, we're the ones who can make big decisions quicker than having to run them by all of the other parties. and in fact, ever since about 2005 we have been having bilateral discussions with the north koreans. they're not well advertised, talked about a lot. the u.s. has been willing to reluctantly meet with the north koreans on a regular basis. the bottom line is that neither the six-party process or bilateral discussions have produced the breakthroughs. host: south korea, u.s., japan, and then north korea. host: right. host: do they agree on the approach to north korea? guest: not at all. on the one hand you have japan, which lives under the threat of north kor

facility in south korea or south korean facility in south korea. very, very important. and to minimize civilian casualties. what i think would happen immediately is the response is, north korea fires, the united nations command, the combined forces command of the united states and south korea would return very precise fire against that location of launch. not to escalate, but to maintain the dmz and the armistice. if they fire, we would fire back. >> simple equation on that. let's look at the one scenario that possibly gets much more out of hand, among the things that seem like they might vaguely be possible. what if north korea in fact did something, in this disputed territory, of who owns what, let's say they attacked a facility like this in a strong way, and tried to land their and essentially seize the property. what happens then? >> not unlike what we just discussed. if the north koreans were to try to occupy, the united nations would reclaim that. there would be a fight to get that island back. we have seen this specifically before. what might occur, we have to th

and those give north korea the ability to cover targets pretty much in most of south korea. then there's the no-dong missile which has a range of 1300 kilometers, that allows coverage of targets in japan as well as south korea. but when you move beyond that, you get into a series of missiles that really cannot be regarded as proven. the focus of the last couple of weeks has been on this missile, two were reportedly moved towards the coast of north korea. there was some speculation that today in honor of the birthday there might be a launch. in this missile's supposed to have a range of about 3,000-3,200 kilometers. it's never been test flown. we've never seen it fly. another missile with a range of 2200 kilometers, it's been tested or flown once in 1998 as a space launch vehicle, and the third stage failed. we've watched the type dong ii missile, that's been tested five times over the last six, seven years either as a ballistic missile or a space launch missile. it's one for phi. the only successful flight was in december where it put a satellite into orbit. reportedly, the

south korea. our correspondents are covering this unfolding crisis and u.s. response with tons of thousands of americans potentially at risk. let's bring in our pentagon correspondent right now, barbara starr. what's the very latest, barbara? >> well, wolf, at this hour, we can tell you that the u.s. intelligence community, the united states military throwing everything they have, satellites, eves dropping systems, reconnaissance, everything they can at the north korea. trying to figure out what the regime is up to. keeping a close eye on that nuclear program. all eyes are focused on this missile -- with a range of 2500 and the question of if and when north korea might test-fire musudans from mobile launchers in eastern north korea. our position has and remained that thort korea should cease. >> reporter: look at this commercial satellite photo from early february. compared to this one, from late march. the north korea bloc 38 north say that you can see new construction a possible effort by north

washington and south korea had actually agreed to give wartime operational control to south korea by two thousand and fifteen but now with north korea's eminent threat or which they call imminent threat growing they've decided to not disband that disband the combined forces command to south korea and actually keep the agreement that the united states will keep military command even in two thousand and fifteen so we see that military occupation by the united states is going to continue and be maintained in south korea weather down mean that south korea's power will decrease and the united states has power will increase in the region we have to wait and see however it does seem that south korea's power is decreasing. a south korea based journalist joseph came has a from soledad many thanks indeed thank you. so late as die of warning came out of the pentagon at ows the deployment of a missile defense system in to prepare against a possible our top but while any assault has deemed highly unlikely the u.s. many are questioning whether washington's actions are proportionate to north korea'

i agree i mentioned south korea i mentioned south korea i mentioned japan if you don't read well you don't get mine i call it a right scuse me if you bring in the third one if you want a pretty good instance of a aggressive imperial movement consider remember that the war in vietnam left two to four million people dead according to robert mcnamara that was not the act of a but now if so why is the dog inviting us back and one of the next to me is more than that joe you know yes i did you raise an excellent question you raise an excellent question about age and powers and asian countries being the determinant of what goes on in asia may i remind you the united states is not a nation power it's half a world away it doesn't belong there you. get what experience is and lighted by asian countries don't be asian countries have a right to invite the united states or you think the asian countries are any but in both. in both south korea and japan there are large peace movements that want the us out of there so who's doing the inviting that one policy established by linked in but then again a

but we have to recognize that south korea does have sovereignty over south korea. and the south korean forces are not all under the command of general thurmond. some of them are under different command. they are not respond-- supposed to respond but who is to say that they wouldn't if there he had saw a local frof case. >> you are saying the u.s. would get sucked in. >> well, we are there. we're there to deter conflict. we're there to try to preserve peace and found a diplomatic path forward. north korea is making that very difficult. we are there together. we have to work on this closely together. general thurmond and his korea counterpart, the deputy commander of the combined force kos manned have lead responsibility but it will be the president of south korea and the president of the united states without have to make the big call. >> warner: as we know there have been no massive movements of forces to the border by the north koreans. but what form might a provocative strike take? i mean what-- what are the u.s. and south korea prepared for? >> the advantage for

ambassador to south korea. he's now dean of the school of international studies at the university of denver. and retired u.s. navy admiral william fallon. he served as the head of the u.s. pacific command and u.s. central command. admiral fallon, what worries me the most is a miscalculation that could trigger all-out war. are you concerned about that, as well? >> wolf, i think it's prudent to be concerned and certainly pay close attention to this. but i believe this thing may be a little bit overhyped right now. >> tell us why, tell us why. >> well, the first thing is his ability to strike the u.s. i think is mostly talk. there's a possibility that some of his missiles might be able to range alaska or possibly a u.s. territory or bases closer in. but unlikely. they've never demonstrated an ability to get anything to fly as far as the u.s. it took them many years to get that one missile to fly th. it's not helpful, of course, all the rhetoric. this is the same old stuff out of the playbook that his father and gr

states, south korea, japan, and china. there has been increasing concern that this war of nerves is going to change into a war of weapons. is thet recent concern possible launch of a north korean medium-range missile. april 15 seemed like a good day to do that since it is the 101st nniversary of kim il sung's birth. what a better present for the old man and to launch a missile in his name. there are lots of questions around this, what the implications are, whether there is a way out of this. i have six questions that i will post to my colleagues in different permutations and will marchs and we through these as expeditiously as we can to leave time for your questions. the first question is, is this crisis different from previous ones? if it is, in what ways? what is the real danger of war? a stab atd you take the first question? >> yes, thank you for being here today. in a number of respects, as you look at the crisis, as it has unfolded, it is easy, especially for cynical old correa hands like me to say, there they go agai

north korea, here, south korea here. let's say north korea did launch a missile and it went out over here and into the sea, what happens? >> there will be a tracking. the telemetry of that will be tracked. we'll identify where the launch is, what the arc is. >> we would know within seconds? >> instantaneously we would pick this up by sea, ground, air, space. this integrated target system. the japanese have an aegis system. >> if it went out there and it was not headed towards any target. it went to sea, as north korea said, would there be any response? >> there would be no kinetic response. we would not fire back. if we knew it was going to land harmlessly, we would collect intelligence. >> let's look at another scenario. let's say that north korea with a missile or artillery started shelling some sort of target down here in south korea, specifically let me say a south korean military target. no u.s. troops involved, not a civilian target. what happens then? >> very important to differ enshe say the between striking a u.

this side is south korea. over there is north korea. >> all cameras, facing this way. >> reporter: rules are tight on this military-guided press tour. don't linger. don't point. this is cold war, up close. we talk about tensions on the peninsula. this is about as tense as it gets. south korean soldiers, their backs to us, facing off with north korean soldiers right on the other side, just feet away. this room we're about to enter is actually divided in half. shut down, just so we can come in and capture some pictures. >> you can maneuver around. just please stay within arms length of the soldier. >> the soldiers are here so we don't get grabbed and pulled into north korea. we're only given a few minutes in here. >> 20 seconds. >> reporter: this is technically south korea on this side. to get over to north korea, just on the other side of these microphones. the next stop is a lookout. you see over there in that tower, that's north korea. you can see the north korean flag flying right there. and that village rig

ambassador to south korea. he's now dean of the school of international studies at the university of denver. and retired u.s. navy admiral william fallon. he served as head of the u.s. pacific command and admiral fallon, what worries me the most is the miscalculation that can trigger an all-out war. are you concerned about that? >> i think it's prudent to be concerned and certainly pay close attention to this. but i believe this thing may be a little bit overhyped right now. >> tell us why. tell us why. >> well, the first thing is his ability to strike the u.s. i think is mostly talk. there's a possibility that some of his missiles might be able to range alaska or possibly u.s. territory or bases closer in. but unlikely, they have never demonstrated an ability to get anything to fly as far as the u.s. it took them many years to get the one missile that we call the taepodong 2 to fly. i think the rhetoric is not helpful, of course. i think this is a lot of the same old stuff out of the playbook that his father a

he particularly wants to intimidate south korea. in the process china is going to be the country that's going to worry about it because over time south korea may very well collapse and you may have a union between those two countries, then china would have a belligerent neighbor on its border he, and that's one thing they want to prevent. the first thing we can do is to see what we can do with china. they are going to be there. they've got a clear motivation to contain north korea. >> you think japan feels the same way as china? >> not quite the same way but i think they are all worried about a very belligerent north korea, which has a lot of technological capability, which has a leader who is prepared to send a lot of people into war apparently. what they are all going to do i think is premature because they don't know to what extent kim jong-un is bluffing and just trying to assert himself. >> china and japan are probably gauging their positions on whether or not they should enter into this, correct? >> that's right. they have to

. >>> when we return, north korea makes a show of force threatening both south korea and the united states. bluster or can they deliver? welcnew york state, where cutting taxes for families and businesses is our business. we've reduced taxes and lowered costs to save businesses more than two billion dollars to grow jobs, cut middle class income taxes to the lowest rate in sixty years, and we're creating tax free zones for business startups. the new new york is working creating tens of thousands of new businesses, and we're just getting started. to grow or start your business visit thenewny.com are you flo? yes. is this the thing you gave my husband? well, yeah, yes. the "name your price" tool. you tell us the price you want to pay, and we give you a range of options to choose from. careful, though -- that kind of power can go to your head. that explains a lot. yo, buddy! i got this. gimme one, gimme one, gimme one! the power of the "name your price" tool. only from progressive. i'm up next, but now i'm singing the heartburn blues. hold on, prilosec isn't for fast relief. cue up alka-seltze

so north korea and south korea, that element as north korea looks at south korea and south korea is then viewed as in bed with the united states, in conducting these exercises, so it all becomes even moreen raging to the nark -- to north korea. >> why is no one talking about north korea is developing nuclear weapons at an increasing rate? >> for its own defense. >> they now say they are taking aim at japan and japan will be their first target. why should the u.s. not be there to at least show our strength and power in defense of our ally japan? >> if this is the case, south korea and japan, who are very powerful rich nations a lot stronger than north korea, build their own nuclear deterrents? that is exactly what is going to happen john. this guy he doesn't have it yet, but he is getting close to be able to put nuclear weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles. >> on my part this is not for north korea by any means, but i do see we are exerting a what? we are exerting a kind of taunt against them. and it is only serving the interests of those, it is not serving their interests. >> i

ally south korea is promising that south korea will pay if war breaks out. south korea is moving up the date for a much-imented missile test and it could happen as soon as this week. the pentagon is pushing back its own missile test. let's get more from jim clancy. a possible new date for a north korean missile test? >> that's correct. i mean, the conclusion that is being drawn here by south korean officials was the equivalent of their national security adviser saying from the evidence that they analyzed and looked at this missile is going to be launched some time this week, perhaps around the tenth of april. originally they thought about five days later than that. they don't know exactly how many are going to be launched. they believe at least one of these medium-range missiles. in an attempt to cool things off, the u.s. has delayed, routine launch of an icbm from vandenberg air force base. they just concluded that they don't want north korea to take this the wrong way. let's avoid any problems on that front. one missile test that we expect to come from the

korea and president park in south korea. he's got the longest run of power, but he's only been in place for about a year. 29, 30 years old. and the question of how he backs up the truck is an interesting one. because, look, it's not hard for him to do it in terms of the people because they have extraordinary propaganda. he can say white is black and get away with it. the real question is how does he look to the military, how does he look to the political leaders as everything he has done over the past months has failed. and so if he backs off, do we start to see instability in the regime? and if he feels the need to continue to provoke at what point does that lead to the kind of action that actually really is dangerous? that does blow up a ship or, you know, he does actually take an action that requires south koreans or u.s. military engagement. i don't think we're there yet. but, you know, that has to be an issue that we are now in the markets watching closely in a way that a couple of months ago frankly we didn't care. >>

and south korea. she told us what american companies did then. >> companies wanted to make sure that they had latest e-mails of all their employees, latest addresses of where everyone lived, and then started looking at supply chains. >> reporter: experts say some americans were evacuated to japan then. most analysts don't think that will happen now, but gm and many other american companies have a lot to lose if tensions escalate or if conflict breaks out between north and south korea. at its five plants in south korea, two of them just outside seoul, gm produces about 1.5 million each year for domestic sale inside south korea and for export to other countries. and according to the u.s. south korea business council, at least 50 american companies either have a presence in south korea or business interests there. there was about $100 billion in two-way trade between the u.s. and south korea last year, and at any given time, there are about 120,000 americans living, working, and traveling in south korea.

i agree i mentioned south korea i mentioned south korea i mentioned japan if you don't read well you don't get mine i call it a right scuse me if you bring in a third one if you want a pretty good instance of aggressive imperial movement consider remember that the war in vietnam left two to four million people dead according to robert mcnamara that was not the act of a but now if so why is here dog inviting us back and one of the next to me is already in that job because i think you raise an excellent question you raise an excellent question about asian powers and asian countries being the determinant of what goes on in asia may i remind you the united states is not an ancient power it's half a world away it doesn't even belong there you. get what experiences and lighted by asian countries don't be asian countries have a right to invite the united states you think the asian country said no to any but in both. in both south korea and japan there are large peace movements that want the u.s. out of there so who's doing the inviting that one policy established by linked in but then again

south korea could get one very easily. what we're trying to do is reassure the japanese and south koreans that, look, we can take care of your security, don't worry, we have the capacity to do what it takes. without getting into all kind of mano-a-mano tit for tat with north korea. >> christiane, do you have a sense of how good u.s. intelligence on north korea may be? i'll tell you, i've heard that the united states has very good reconnaissance satellite photography, communications, electronics intercepts, but not necessarily a good sense of what's going on with kim jong-un and his inner circle, human intelligence, if you will. i wonder what you've heard? >> well, precisely that. they obviously have quite a lot of intelligence on the technical matters. but not on the leadership. and not on kim jong-un. we've been hearing that and talking about that for the last several days since this crisis has ratcheted up. i've been speaking to quite a lot of experts, and mike chanoy, who used to be a cnn correspondent and visited there

is watching and acting to defend its allies, south korea. the united states defense department confirms f-22 stealth fighter jets are in south korea to participate in military drills there. the f-22 rap tor is an advanced fighter jet that can evade radar detection. it is a show of force that may cause north korea to think twice about its provocations. but north korean leader kim jong un continues to disregard warnings from the international community during a parliamentary session with legislators, kim and party officials declared it will build more nuclear weapons and conduct nuclear strikes on south korea and the u.s. the north korea news agency stating in an article from this time on the north-south relations will be entering a state of war and all issues raised between the north and the south will be handled abg abg -- accordingly. >> he's trying to be the tough guy. he's 28, 29 # years old and he keeps going further and further out. my concern would be he may feel to save face, launch some sort of attack on south korea or some base in t

said they would attack south korea at this point however south north korea does not want to engage in dialogue with south korea north korea's primary objective in dialogue and negotiations is the united states we see that the united states is not tary command is actually growing stronger in south korea we see that south korea's role is actually shrinking in all of this so south korea has to come up with a way in which it will become relevant. the u.n. says the deadlock has gone too far now off to pyongyang with claims that it will restart a nuclear reaction which has been shut for six here is north korea allisat its missile units are combat ready and warned of a possible preemptive strike on the u.s. and so and team shark has written extensively about he was foreign policy and east asian politics and believes both sides should know they are playing a dangerous game when you escalate to this point any small mistake can turn into a major catastrophe and that's the danger north korea itself knows that if it didn't attack a bit in attack the united states it would be committing national s

a new military plan for north korea so that even a minor conflict devote united states and south korea would hit north korea with considerable force and according to the south korean ministry of national defense policy reply in both peace time and war time under the missile technology control regime united states allow itself to create an exemption list of missile ranges but so they could now are lifting missiles work of the entire territory of north korea north korea is under sanctions basically sort of north korea how the few options to to resist and but yet i'm sure you talk about you talk about international law here and the issues of sanctions i mean is there some already saying that in north korea playing with fire for example by restarting its yongbyon nuclear facility or it is it a vital move for the country at this point you're saying that south korea has has an exemption when it comes to using ballistic missiles it's not the same for north korea. you know as far as starting the nuclear facility as a symbolic move on north korea it's harder it really makes little difference th

but here's where it's making a bit of news here in south korea. this is moving the ball, moving the ball because south koreans believe that the only way to stop north korea, and this is a growing sentiment here on the peninsula, is for south korea to have its own nuclear capability. two recent national polls showed 60% to 70% of south koreans want that capability. it doesn't have it right now. here's the global concern. if south korea then arms itself with nuclear weapons, you're looking at a potential regional arms race. japan wanting in, china escalating. so that's a big concern here in south korea right now. >> congressman, so is your understanding of this that the d.i.a. believes that the north koreans could launch some sort of a weapon against a south korea that has a nuclear device on it? they could currently do that? it wouldn't be accurate but they could do it? >> yeah. yeah, the reliability is low. they could launch but who knows where it would end up exactly. they have, according to d.i.a., and i'm just repeating what they have said, the

facility in south korea or south korean facility in south korea. very, very important. and to minimize civilian casualties. what i think would happen immediately is the response is, north korea fires, the united nations command, the combined forces command of the united states and south korea would return very precise fire against that location of launch. not to escalate, but to maintain the dmz and the armistice. if they fire, we would fire back. >> simple equation on that. let's look at the one scenario that possibly gets much more out of hand, among the things that seem like they might vaguely be possible. what if north korea in fact did something, in this disputed territory, of who owns what, let's say they attacked a facility like this in a strong way, and tried to land their and essentially seize the property. what happens then? >> not unlike what we just discussed. if the north koreans were to try to occupy, the united nations would reclaim that. there would be a fight to get that island back. we have seen this specifically before. what might occur, we have to th

not even to south korea. he told me that if they were going to threaten south korea with any kind of nuclear device, and they probably have about four to eight plutonium devices, he thinks, that would have to be delivered by truck, plane or boat. he does not believe they have the ability to put it on any missiles right now. but they are perhaps working on that in order to deter the united states. wolf? >> fareed, i think these -- this new dia assessment is pretty chilling. but let's get back a little bit to what ban ki-moon told me. he said he would be willing to go to north korea and speak directly with kim jong-un, and when i asked him to speak in korean to the north korean leader, you heard what he had to say. he made that direct appeal. i suspect that kind of gesture is precisely what the north korean leader kim jong-un would like to see, to get that kind of respect, if you will, despite the provocative steps he's taken in recent days. >> oh, clearly this is a search for legitimacy, credibility. but wolf,

but the big difference to me the politics in south korea are changing by the day regarding north korea. so if there's some provocation, it won't be business as usual by south korea. i could can see a major war happening if the north koreans overplay their hands this time because south korea, the united states, the whole region is fed up with this guy. >> but what happens if there is some kind of conflict between the north and the south? that becomes a conflict with the you stays, doesn't it? >> the north loses and the south wins with our help, that's what happens. >> and what about the rest of the region in you're talking about japan? talking more nuclear weapons? >> japan and south korea have not gone nuclear unlike the middle east, because they trust us. as long as south korea and japan trust us to be in the fight, they won't go down the nuclear road. it's important they always believe we have their back, and it's important north korea knows what happens if they engage anybody in the region associated with us, including our own troops, they lose. >> before i ask you a little bit more

he says south korea had been right. he said both sides have agreed that they would engage with each other before they took in the steps with north korea. -- in qualified support the to a bit of daylight between washington and seoul on this issue. intelligence reports says the korea potentially does have a nuclear capable missile. how does that change the conversation? conversation that the foreign minister and the secretary of state had with reporters. they were asked specifically about the issue. the report suggested that there was a miniaturized device capable of being delivered by missile in being the korean peninsula. they say they were moderately confident about that. it was a classified report that was declassified and read at a congressional hearing. thatentagon response was the u.s. understood that there was no fully developed, tested means of delivering a major rise nuclear warhead. they did not say why they thought you'd what was wrong. if north korean did have this capability, it would be low level and unreli

cnn's jim clancy is live in seoul, south korea. jim, new reports that north korea has moved a second midrange missile to its east coast. you know, what sort of message does that send? and how much of these actions are aimed at impressing people in their own country rather than a threat to other countries? >> well, of course, it's always for that domestic audience. but we can say, this is a message that he wants to send to the world. for everybody to see. the u.s. and south korea can have these huge military maneuvers every year but little tiny north korea, the hermit kingdom, can still make a superpower turn around and jump and make moves. why? well listen to victoria nuland, the state department spokeswoman. >> when you have a country that is making the kinds of bellicose threats that they are making, and taking the steps that they are taking, and when you have allies in treaty commitments, you have to take it serious. you don't have any other choice. >> all right. let's take a look at a map, john, explain why. it's believed that

these are the faces of south korea. nhk world updates you on what's happening across the peninsula, wednesday and thursday here on "newsline." >>> militants attacked a power plant in pakistan on tuesday. unrest continues in the country in the lead-up to the scheduled general elections. pat here's the story. >> the attack left at least seven people dead and raises fears of possible electric shortages in the major city of peshawar. the incident serves as a reminder of national leaders' failure to stop militant attacks, and manage chronic power shortages. dozens of militants targeted the power station with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. >> translator: five people have given their lives while performing their duties. the attackers have taken with them some members of the operations and maintenance staff. so far, there is no trace of them. >> no groups have claimed responsibility for the attack. the plant is one of the largest in northwestern pakistan, and is normally a key power supplier to peshawar city. >> transla

korea talked about maybe it's time for south korea to think about also becoming a nuclear arms owner and that's obviously created an interesting backlog for secretary kerry's meetings and obviously that is also filled rhetoric and you're involved your colleagues in pyongyang would be looking at discussions about going down the road. >> all just make a couple points. first, direct or clapper and i had some comments about the report and that it did not have the intelligence community and i think i'll let his comments in the comments in the hearing yesterday speak for themselves. it does remind me eight years ago i was senator clinton's senior defense policy on the armed services committee and there's a similar action that had a similar public responds when she asked a question about the ability of the north koreans to put a warhead on a missile. so the more things change, the more they stay the same. this is an issue eight years ago that we were concerned about and one that we are so concerned about in our intelligence community is considering an inking about. in terms of the nuclear i

said they would attack south korea at this point however south north korea does not want to engage in dialogue with south korea north korea's primary objective in dialogue and negotiations is the united states we see that the united states is not tary command is actually growing stronger in south korea we see that south korea's role is actually shrinking in all of this so south korea has to come up with a way in which it will become relevant when we usually hear threats from north korea these threats are actually not uncommon for south koreans see here so often when i do south koreans how they feel about these threats they usually say that i'm very used to it that these threats are men dain and actually very common but when i was on the streets today and i was talking to people it was a different sense there was just more a sense of unease eerie feeling that they were getting that the rhetoric has gone to a point where they are thinking that maybe this could possibly be true. sometime regarding north korea's menacing action i don't feel a direct threat but i'm getting a little anxious

once regarded as a symbol of cooperation between south korea and north korea. north korean officials warn that they would pull all staff from esong industrial complex. it appears they are true to their word. more than 50,000 people have not turned up for work. the industrial park began operations nine years ago. this is the first time it's been shut down. last week the north koreans began refusing entry to workers from the south. now employees from the north aren't there, either. officials in pyongyang say the closure may be permanent. >> closing it would be regrettable given that more than 50,000 north korean people are employed there, and it would not help them achieve their state of desire to improve their economy and better the lives of their people. >>> south korean president park geun-hye have criticized them for pulling their workers out. >> translator: if north korea is going to do things like stop operations at the kaesong complex and disregard international rules and agreements, then no country or company in the world will invest in them. >> park urge

plus, north korea enters a state of war against south korea. we will ask our sunday panel have the firey threats reached the danger point? and our power player of the week, 9 untold story of how a doctor saved the life of ronald reagan. all right now on "fox news sunday." >> chris: hello again and happy easter from hannon: andnda ooton arom fox news in washington. after months of debate, the senate is finally ready to vote on new gun control legislation. one of the people at the center of the issue is mark kelly, retired astronaut and navy captain and the husband of former congress woman gabby giffords who was shot two years ago. captain kelly joins us from tucson, arizona. after newtown there was internationalout rage over -- national outrage over the acts of mass violence but that has begun to change. cbs has a new poll just aicaler the massacre 57% supported stricter gun controls and now that is down to 47% and harry reid says the bill he was introduce the week after next won't include a ban on assault we to vons and won't include a limit on