♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with north korea. that country conducted its fifth underground nuclear test on friday. the government confirmed the test after a magnitude 5.3 earthquake hit near the country's nuclear site. it suggests the country is moving closer to building a earthquake hit near the functional nuclear warhead and the missiles to carry the warhead. international leaders have condemned pyongyang's actions, which occurred days after the g-20 summit in china. president obama expressed continued support and security for our regional allies and called for serious consequences.

joining me now is richard haass. president of the council on foreign relations, and once again, i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. how serious is this? richard: this is arguably the number one national security threat that faces the united states over the next five years, possibly facing the next president of the united states. charlie: why? richard: this is the most closed, most militarized society on the face of the earth. it has committed, in some ways, a slow-motion genocide against its people. they have posed a military threat for decades, i should -- as you know. have the old world war ii borders on the korean peninsula. the division at the 38th parallel. now, on top of it all, you've got a fast growing nuclear program, not just nuclear material, but as you said, ballistic missiles that could launch from a number of platforms, from land or from submarines. and they are working hard on shrinking the size of the warheads. i think it is a question of when, not if, the national

director of intelligence walks into the oval office and says mr. president or madam president, we now face the imminence of an action ability of a nuclear missile that could hit san francisco. charlie: what do we do? richard: it's hard to sanction a society that is already so without. secondly, negotiations. that hasn't worked. what can we do? we are building defensive systems. there are two big issues. one is whether you can persuade the chinese, through china, probably 2/3 of north korea's trade goes every day. can you persuade the chinese to put more pressure on the north koreans? they don't like them much. the real question is, can you change their preference? they would prefer right now to have a divided korean peninsula to a unified korean peninsula dominated by seoul. can we change chinese

calculations through certain assurances? that is one issue. the other is, if we can't, what further pressure can we put on north korea, not just through sanctions, but through cyber or conceivably in certain conditions through military force? charlie: are we likely to do that? richard: i would hope we would certainly have the exploratory conversations with the chinese. what are we and the south koreans and the japanese prepared to put on the table? what would we say about the terms under which a unified korea would live? would it still be an american ally? i would say yes. maybe we would have far fewer forces moved away from the 38th parallel. maybe we would guarantee that there would be no nuclear weapons. there might be something in it for china. the question is if it would be enough for china. that is one thing we can do, have that die leak with them -- dialogue with them. the other thing is why wouldn't we do things to pressure the regime. the regime is fragile. why wouldn't we necessarily say regime change? put information into that closed society to try to stir up some opposition to the regime. and if they do have nuclear

weapons, if we are not content with deterrence and defense -- i don't know about you, the idea of having a deterrent relationship with someone like this young leader doesn't fill me with great comfort. we have to ask really serious questions. imagine we got intelligence that north korea was putting its missiles on alert. would we be prepared to tolerate that? would we consider launching a preemptive strike? charlie: would it be a preemptive strike against their missile sites or something else? richard: if we know there is the possibility of imminent launch, i would say, for an american president, that would be a real decision, whether we are prepared to tolerate that risk or, if at that point, we would act, even if there could be a decent chance of war. charlie: if they have a warhead on a missile that is ready to go, would they have enough early detection of what we are doing to be able to launch if they

feared their own destruction? richard: it's not clear. you're talking a question of minutes, of relative intelligence capabilities. the alternative is we don't even let things go that far. rather than preemptive strikes, you have conversation. we have thought about this very hard. united states during the early 1990's, the early clinton years. north korea was taking these pods, these nuclear rods, and they were moving it. there were a lot of people, including myself, who said we ought not to let the koreans take this next step, getting closer to nuclear weapons. the clinton administration looked at it. they decided it was too risky to launch an attack, in part because they were worried about a conventional war on the korean peninsula, which would be very damaging. because we have not acted in the past, we now face a very real possibility. i don't believe there is any chance we can negotiate ourselves out of this. for a future president, you have

to say are you willing to live by some mixture of deterrence and defense, or, if that's too risky, you have to hope negotiations with china would somehow solve this problem for you or you have to contemplate some cyber, or maybe more sanctions or even conceivably military actions. we are into a really dangerous place either way. charlie: it is the number one foreign policy dilemma for the united states and for the next president. richard: i believe vital national interests are at stake. this is big. charlie: let's take the chinese, for example. clearly, they have been resistant. they understand the damage of north korea collapses, refugees come flooding across the border. they are concerned about the balance of power in the region. they are concerned about those two things. you spoke to us in part. that's the reason they have been resistant. but they have been -- have they joined the world in condemning

this? richard: they voted for sanctions as recently as today. they issued some sort of a statement. privately, chinese diplomats hate -- the disdain they have for the north koreans is hard to exaggerate. so, what can we do to influence them? the question is incentivizing them to say, look, i know you are scared about instability. we know you're scared about a combined korea, almost being like a combined vietnam. how can we reassure them about the orientation of that country, in terms of it could be better for the chinese in some ways? also, the chinese have been complaining the last two months about our missile defenses there, the theater high-altitude system, that the united states and south korea are going ahead with. but the chinese have to know their failure to stop the north korean program is directly responsible for what united states and south korea are doing. i think it is this mixture of

can we reassure you, but also if you don't deal with the north korean threat yourself, we will be forced to take defensive measures that you are not going to like because it may have , implications for china's own ability to carry out nuclear deterrence or project conventional military force. we have to the chinese on both sides, reassure -- we have to make it clear there are consequences china will not like if north korea continues to go down this path. based on my own conversations over the last couple of years, there's a lot of people in china who see north korea as far more of a liability than an asset. that is a real change of the last 10 years. charlie: so, there is internal debate within the chinese government, within the standing committee, about what ought to be the nature of our relationship with north korea and how do we reevaluate? richard: absolutely. and that's something that we ought to engage. charlie: thank you. richard haass, president of the council on foreign relations. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪ charlie: we continue our

conversation about the challenge from north korea with christopher hill, the dean of the joseph korbel school of international studies at the university of denver. he served as a u.s. ambassador to iraq from 2009 to 2010. in 2005, he headed the u.s. delegation to the six party talks aimed at resolving the north korean nuclear crisis. i'm pleased to have them on this program this evening. welcome, chris. christopher: thank you very much. charlie: tell me how you size up -- or size up for us the threat of north korea's nuclear capabilities. christopher: the threat is very real, and their nuclear capabilities are developing really by the day. i think in the past people talked about this as more of a stunt to get attention, whether there was an international event going on and they would fire off a missile or something. but i think what we are seeing

now is a pretty integrated military program designed to make a nuclear warhead that can fit on an intercontinental ballistic missile. it's pretty clear that it is a military testing program. they will have their failures. they don't seem to be afraid anymore of having failures. they will learn from their failures and have another test until it works out. i think the time is approaching where we can't just give the junior college try here. we are going to have to sit down and figure out what we are going to do about this very serious threat. charlie: a couple questions before we ask that very question, what are we going to do. how far are they having from having a deliverable nuclear warhead that could reach the united states? christopher: the honest answer is no one really knows. what we know is they have been successful with multistage rockets. what we know is they seem to

have experiment did with different designs. you will notice in their statement they did not talk about a nuclear device. they talked about an actual weapon. i think they are getting closer. that said, there is a whole host of complexities to putting a nuclear warhead on a missile. there is a lot of stuff that needs to be done. i don't think this is going to happen all by next tuesday, but it's pretty clear that it is coming and it is probably moving faster than our policy apparatus has moved in terms of trying to come up with something to really deal with it. charlie: then what is our response if, in fact, they become successful, not only within the context of after they've become successful, but what should our response be before they become successful? christopher: i suppose it depends on what the definition of unacceptable is, because we have talked for years about the idea that it is unacceptable to allow north korea to make a

nuclear weapon that is deliverable and that can threaten its neighbors and, frankly, even potentially threaten us. they don't care what the united states thinks, what china thinks, what the security council does. they don't seem to be dissuaded by sanctions, albeit those are sanctions that we can work harder to strengthen. they are one of the most sanctioned countries in the world. they don't seem to be moved by this. at the same time, the military options are pretty awful. the idea of going in an overt way to take out their missiles or their launch pads, things like this, these are fraught decisions, especially when you look at a map and you see that some 20 million south koreans live within a stone's throw almost of the border. the military option is not very good. the question is whether there might be some other options, options that probably shouldn't

be discussed on television, but options, nonetheless, that could, in some way, through some sort of process, retard their program and create circumstances where they can't move as fast as they clearly are moving today. and those intelligence -- those items are in the intelligence area. things that probably the u.s. and china need to really have a deep dive to discuss. this idea that we can outsource this problem to china to say that the chinese need to solve it, and at the same time, the chinese are saying somehow the u.s. needs to solve it -- neither of us can solve it on our own. we need to work far more, i think, comprehensively with the chinese and others on the range of capabilities that we have and how to apply those capabilities to retarding this program. charlie: could china shut it down if they wanted to? christopher: china probably

could do more, but i think the problem in china is the lack of consensus on what it would mean if north korea went away. there are many chinese, especially in the security services, who would think of the demise of north korea as somehow a victory for the united states and a defeat for china. that mindset still exists in china, and so that has to change. it is changing. there are a lot more chinese who are really getting quite angry and fed up with the north koreans, but, for now, they don't have the kind of consensus on what to do about north korea that they need in order to take the draconian measures that are necessary to do something about this nuclear threat. probably the fifth nuclear test will convince some chinese who thought, oh, the americans are exaggerating. they are just trying to steal the march on us. they are just trying to pressure us. probably some chinese are going to come over from that argument.

but, still, china has a problem making these moves. charlie: is there greater national security threat than north korea? christopher: you know, my own view, being sort of an old-fashioned guy, i worry about nuclear weapons. i worry about the proliferation of them. but i also worry about countries like north korea for whom a sense of responsibility is a completely elusive concept. so, if i stack up all of the problems in the world, whether it's isis or whatever, i really think north korea should be at the top of those issues. i think we need a policy commensurate with the emerging threat. it's not just a threat against us, it is against our partners and allies in the region. some of them would be interested in going nuclear if they see the threat unattended to. i think we need to look at the whole issue of what north

korea's emergence as a nuclear power could mean to the whole international or global system of nonproliferation. it really makes a mockery of it. so, i think we've got a huge problem. and i think we need to, in terms of our relationship with china, really get that problem up at the top. obviously, there are a lot of issues with china. the south china sea is a serious issue. the east china sea is also a serious issue, vis-a-vis china and japan, but i don't think there is a more serious one the -- than north korea's hellbent desire for nuclear weapons. charlie: and all the possibilities they could do if they had them, not only as a threat to the region, but also to selling those weapons to nonstate actors who would have zero sense of responsibility about using them. christopher: that's right. the good news is, if you sell a

nuclear weapon to someone and they use it, you can find out where that weapon came from. it is sort of like fingerprints. the bad news is, these are totally responsible entities. -- totally irresponsible entities. the use of one of these weapons is just hard to imagine in today's world. and when you see the north koreans with a test of a weapon that is some 2/3 the size of hiroshima, i mean, this is a serious, serious problem, and it's not going to go away by saying, well, the north koreans have a lot of problems in their testing programs. they have not married up the weapon to a ballistic missile. that's all true, but i think what you have to look at is the intent of north korea, which is quite clearly aimed at getting a deliverable nuclear weapon. charlie: suppose north korea has nuclear weapons and can deliver them through their own intercontinental ballistic missiles. how fast would it take for japan

and south korea to have nuclear weapons that they could deliver in the region as well? christopher: i think those are two of the world's most technologically advanced countries. if they wanted to go nuclear, they could do it, but they also pay a great deal of respect to the international system, to their obligations in the international system, so it would be a very heavy step for them to take. currently, i don't think you could find public support for that type of thing. but from a technical point of view, they could do it very quickly. from a political and, frankly, civilizational point of view, i think it would take a lot longer. that said, we need to make sure that they understand that our nuclear weapons, our -- i'm sorry, our nuclear umbrella would cover them. that is, if they are hit by a nuclear weapon, we would retaliate. we are duty-bound, we are

treaty-bound to retaliate. we need to make sure they believe in that nuclear umbrella we have provided them. we have said you don't need nuclear weapons because we have nuclear weapons. they need to be absolutely sure that our commitment would be followed. charlie: chris hill, dean of the joseph korbel school of international studies at the university of denver in the great state of colorado. we will be right back. ♪

charlie: on this program, we've had other conversations about the threat from north korea. i spoke with president obama about it during my interview with him in hanover, germany, and most recently with vice president joe biden and mike morel. here is an excerpt from those conversations. president obama: north korea is a massive challenge. our first priority is to protect the american people and our allies, the republic of korea, japan, that are vulnerable to the provocative actions that north korea is engaging in. they have been thus far resistant to international pressure because their economy is so insulated and so rudimentary that trying to

squeeze them harder often times has limited gains. and i'm concerned about the fact that they continue to invest heavily in having systems of delivery. this is an example of where maintaining a constructive relationship with china can make a difference. because if there's one country that could help us amplify the cost of bad behavior and could offer also the benefits of better behavior by the north koreans, china would be a critical partner in that process. charlie: my last question, is china making the point, you have to stop them, but every time they fail, they learn some. -- learn something. how close are they to having both the missile delivery system, as well as the warhead? president obama: look, obviously, they're not as far

along as some of the other nuclear states. charlie: but -- president obama: but they are erratic enough. their leader is personally irresponsible enough that we don't want them getting close. and we're going to have to continue to apply pressure. and this is going to be an issue that i inherited from the previous president and, unlike the iran nuclear deal, i'm not going to be able to say to the next president, this one i can wrap up in a bow and say has been resolved for a while. this is something that is continually going to vex, i think, the region and the international community. u.s. leadership is going to be required, but it is not something that lends itself to an easy solution. we could, obviously, destroy north korea with our arsenals.

aside from the humanitarian cost of that, they are right next door to our vital ally, republic of korea. so, that creates vulnerabilities for our allies and higher costs in terms of deterrence. and we've just got to constantly work with our allies to make sure that we're putting as much pressure as possible on them, but doing it in responsible and cogent ways. one of the things we have been doing is spending a lot more time positioning our missile defense systems, so that even as we try to resolve the underlying problem of nuclear development inside of north korea, we are also setting up a shield that can at least block the relatively low-level threats that they're posing right now. vice president biden: china has the single greatest ability to influence north korea by cutting

off a-b-c-d, a whole range of things, but it could also cause the implosion of north korea. china wonders what would happen then. the flip of that is, when i tell president xi, you have to understand we've got a guy up there in north korea who is talking about building a nuclear weapon that could strike the united states, not only hawaii and alaska, but the mainland of the united states -- and i say, so, we are going to move up our defense system, and he says, no, wait a minute. my military thinks you are going to try to encircle us. i say, what would you do? do you think we should stand back? and what happens if we don't work out something together on north korea? what happens if japan, who could, tomorrow, go nuclear? they have the capacity to do it.

charlie: and that's ok with donald trump? it is not ok for us to see the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. china is trying to work its way through its own dilemma internally. mike: i would put north korea on the list of threats, because north korea has the capability today to launch a nuclear -- a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead on it that could reach the united states of america. do i think that's going to happen? no. but that risk exists. charlie: why do you think it's not going to happen? because we could shoot it down or? mike: because i think, a, he is rational. he understands, if he did that, that would be the end of his country. two, we have significant missile defense capabilities. one could be fired in confusion. one could be fired in miscalculation. we could deal with it.

what i really worry about are two things. i worry less about them launching a missile at us. the two things i do worry about, there could be some sort of conflict between north and south korea that could evolve into a nuclear strike by north korea on south korea. the reason i'm worried about that is because south korea used to simply take the blows that were given at it by north korea. north koreans sank a south korean submarine several years ago. north korea shelled a south korean city. that killed a number of people several years ago. south koreans did nothing in response. politically, that's coming to the point in south korea where that is no longer acceptable. politically, a south korean regime is going to have to respond. just a couple months ago, a couple of north korean operatives came across the border, planted some mines. a south korean soldier walking

along was killed by one of these mines. the old south korea would have just let that go. the new south korea, charlie, responded by firing 50 artillery shells back into north korea. so, you can see how this could snowball into something bigger. that's one thing i worry about, something getting out of control between south korea and north korea. probably the biggest thing i worry about is north korea has demonstrated it is willing to sell ballistic missile technology and actually sell ballistic missiles and they've shown that they are willing to sell nuclear technology, which they did to the syrians, and the syrians were in the process of building a nuclear reactor to produce weapons grade uranium. charlie: is this what was charlie: this is what -- mightke: right.

my main concern is that the north koreans may decide to sell a nuclear device or a nuclear weapon. that is why it is on my list of threats. charlie: we depend on the chinese to do more, don't we? mike: china is in a tough spot here. people beat them up a lot on this, they are in a really tough spot. here is the spot they are in. by the way, there has been a major change in how the chinese look at north korea in the last five years. five years ago, the chinese looked at the korean peninsula and said, the biggest threat to stability on this peninsula is the united states of america. that is what the chinese thought five years ago. now they think the biggest threat to stability is there leader because of the crazy stuff he does.

charlie: the new museum of african american history and culture opens on september 24. i went there on thursday to talk with senators tim scott and cory booker. they are in the united states senate, representing the first time in history the two african-american elected senators have served at the same time. we talked about race and the significance of african american history, and the conversation that is necessary today. here is part of our conversation. tim: when i walked in here, looking at the dogs on the outside, the distinction in capitol hill, i first thought of my grandfather who passed away in january of this year. i thought about taking him to vote for the first african-american president. a day that he never thought would come. walking in here with the weight of history, the gravity that we

face as a nation, encouraged me, saddened me and made me understand the role that we could play as a country together. not only the experiences of being a young african-american growing up, but even more powerful and having parents and grandparents who have been telling us stories and hoping for america, loving for america, and praying for a mirror cap. this is a building that a wish by grandparents could have seen open. i know it would have given them a sense of legitimacy. a sense that they belong and americans in bracing of the african-american community. not in a symbolic way, but in a deeply substantive way. to cross that threshold of the building, that moment of walking into the building, i almost felt

as if my ancestors were all rejoicing in that moment. >> this building, in many ways, i have started receiving phone calls for people to visit. for the first time, you heard this lien in concept. you sense people leaning and and wanting to be a part of this historic building. as if walking in here makes them a part of history, because they know that their ancestors are a part of history. it validates a reality that we have all known. but for the first time in the nation's capital, we know that african-american history is american history. charlie: and being part of american history. and their history is american history. it is interesting that there are so many young people that don't have a sense of history, whether they are african-american or

not. >> people have said that black history is not for black history, it is for americans. it is for all of us to feel pride. all of us to feel that history is a part of them. no matter what your background or race is. it hurts me how little folks often know about the contributions of african-american leaders. charlie: we are sitting here in this magnificent new museum. there is the washington monument right there. the president of the united states. what do you hope? >> i hope that one of the beauties of this museum being beauties of this museum being here will be in understanding, appreciation of the depth, pain, agony and tragedy of slavery. i hope that the suffering from

decade to decade, to decade, to decade will be understood in a very real and tangible way. i hope that the weight of the past will slow your gate and bow your head. as he walked out of here, i hope that the sense of freedom and expectations will overwhelm you. and that you will feel individually responsible for making america the most amazing country for every single citizen in our land. ♪

charlie: on january 15, 2009, pilot sully, was landing the plane. he was a hero after saving the life of all passengers and crew on board. "sully" the new film starring tom hanks did picks the investigation. i recently spoke with captain sullenberger about the new film, but more importantly about that

day. the obvious first question for you as we sit down is, when you think of at the hudson river and we could see the george washington bridge, what do you think? chesley: i was very glad to have it. it was the only thing i knew would work. charlie: so your name will forever be linked to the hudson river. chesley: certainly, this experience and event will be linked to it. charlie: the film opens with a nightmare scenario. but it is a nightmare scenario? chesley: yes. charlie: was that in your mind, or are you so focused on what might have been disastrous for what might i do for the next nano second. chesley: there was no room for any extra newest thoughts.

i never once thought about my family, or anything other than controlling my body's huge physiological response to this sudden event. about flying the airplane, flying it well and solving it until we solve it well. i was confident, that even though we never trained for this event and you cannot practice water landings. the only training we ever got from water landings was a theoretical discussion. i was confident that i could find a way to do that. charlie: and that comes from experience? chesley: it comes from having developed the skills, having developed the judgment to be able to solve essentially any airplane problem. even when you never imagined it. charlie: what is amazing is how quick it happens. between the time the birds hit and you hit the water.

chesley: we had, as it turned out, 208 seconds, that is just under three and a half seconds. until we had -- three half minutes. that was all the time we had. i knew that our flight path was going to intercept the surface of the earth. i had to choose the best possible place for that to occur. charlie: a lot of the movie is about that choice. is the movie close to the book? chesley: the movie is based upon the book. but, it covers the story that no one knows. everyone knows that we landed and everyone survived, and we celebrated that. they do not know what happened after that. that part of how we learn in aviation, part of the formal

lesson with the national transportation safety board is to leave no stone unturned. to follow a truth wherever it leads. even if professional reputations get in the way, they are set aside to find the truth. charlie: but even though there was not a mistake here, normally you would think if there is a crash you need an investigation. if something went wrong you need investigation. chesley: it is their job to see if that is the case and to find out what went wrong. we had to make us all safer. if that is the case and to find out what went wrong. one of the biggest frustrations for me and the board members is one of the biggest frustrations that, like many accident investigators, the ntsb made about three dozen investigations going forward coming out of this. but the ntsb cannot mandate that they be adopted. that is up to the regulatory body to do. sadly, only two or three of the body recommendations had been mandated by the faa.

there are a lot of reasons, but the bottom line is that the airlines are in a very cost competitive industry and are reluctant to take on something that, like many accident that they see as a burden. charlie: isn't that an avoidance of public responsibility? chesley: yes. charlie: they will say they want want to do it because it cost to much? chesley: yes. when i talked about aviators and when each of us chose to enter this noble profession. i consider a calling. we make a promise to all of our future passengers that we will do the very best. every airline executive, every lawmaker, evie regulator should

feel, and act on that that same obligation. charlie: not just regulators, everybody that is involved with air traffic. chesley: right now, in some important ways we are not. charlie: there is this movie out there, and you are played by tom hanks. if you cannot get jimmy stewart, tom hanks would be good. chesley: tom is our generation's everyman. he has played a lot of people, still living. like a friend of mine from apollo 13. and captain phillips, and others. this film may be about me, but it is not my film. it is clint's film. what i gather, tom was nearly at the top of everyone's list. charlie: all he needed was a mustache and white hair, and there he was. chesley: my wife and i had a chance to visit the set. i was working on a speech, but one night i was able to watch the scene where tom is running in times square. she saw the back of tom's right

here and she said that looks just like sully. charlie: what did you talk about? did he say what do i need to do to be you? chesley: one of the first things we talked about was the responsibility he felt about playing a real person still living. at some point of time this film will be in the public's eye. but after the film has run its course, i will have to go back to be living my life and he wanted to make sure he did not screw it up for me. charlie: he wanted the public to

admire the man for what he was, not by how he was per trade. your life essentially today is motivational, consulting, giving people the benefit of your own experience about leadership. about who all you know. chesley: and about the need for that. the fact that i spent my whole life and proved that it works in real life under the most extreme conditions, it is something that can be made applicable to almost every industry. whether it is medicine or financial risk management. it is leadership according to core values. building up an effective culture. doing things for the right reasons, not for your own in richmond, but for the greater good. having moral courage to act against your immediate self interest for the long-term. because in the long term, it will pay off. charlie: are those things you can learn? chesley: i sure hope so, i did. i got it from my grandparents, my parents, people i admired and respected throughout my life.

i have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. i have seen what worked and i have tried to learn from it. in your late those who have made the difficult things look easy. charlie: someone at once defined courage as grace under pressure. it may have been hemingway. do you define what you did as courageous or simply duty? chesley: can it be both? charlie: why is it courageous? chesley: my favorite definition of courage is not the absence of fear, but what you do in spite of it. it is controlling it, it is doing your best even though it is startling, disturbing, and difficult. charlie: that is what you meant by in the moment that the birds hit, you lost your trust. you had to be in control of yourself?

chesley: yes, then we had to force order on what might have been chaos by synthesizing a lifetime of training experience. by imposing that i had to make it one that i could solve. to set clear priorities for a event. charlie: in a sense you had trained, because it is about leadership and being able to react to leadership and all those things that a good pilot has to prepare. you are not only a commercial pilot, but in air force pilot. chesley: if you do what i think the best have always done, the pilots with whom i have flown, that i thought were the best, were the ones that did two things. they cared a lot, and they paid attention. in other words, they had a deeply internalized sense of responsibility. they knew that they needed to

make each flight a learning opportunity and each flight better than the previous. charlie: in the moment, you cannot think about them can you? chesley: i had to already have thought about that and every person who had shaped me. i had to not think about those in terms of conscious thoughts, but have it immediately accessible in the back of my life. so even in those 208 seconds, i can use those experiences to help frame the decision-making process. charlie: what did clint eastwood what to know or want to tell you? chesley: i think when he came to our home and met lori and me, he wanted to see what made us tick. i think he almost wanted to reassure us. that he would take care of us. he would tell a true story.

when someone gives the right to tell the story of their lives, you are handing the keys and watching them drive away with it. it is a huge leap of faith. i think in this case it was rewarding. when i see that for trail on the screen, it not only looks real, it sounds real. charlie: when you watch the film for the first time who sought? chesley: the first time i saw with my family. it was a very emotional, moving experience for us. we could not put into words immediately. charlie: so eastwood and hanks got it, as far as you see. as good as hollywood could do to reflect the moment and the personality, they captured it?

chesley: and the emotion. what i really wanted this film to have was a real undercurrent of the importance of our common humanity. i think it is there. charlie: how so? chesley: this is about a group of people, at a time in the world's history when it seemed like everything was going wrong. it seem like no one could do anything right. i think some people began to doubt human nature. it was really about self interest and greed. this group of people who did not know each other made it their mission in life to see that every life was saved. charlie: that is the largest are here. chesley: when we work together there is a lot we cannot accomplish. during this second war at pearl harbor, when we were not doing

well against the japanese, there was a group of ragtag bunch, including the ban from the uss california. their job was to break the japanese code. the commanding officer in charge had a sign on his desk that said we could accomplish anything if no one cares who gets the credit. i think aaron eckhart does a great job of bringing to life his personality. and i love how tom and aaron on screen bring together this wonderful, professional relationship. charlie: immediately after, what is it like on the day after something like this happens to your life? chesley: i think i felt some of the things on the two that i

felt in the first seconds. i remember vividly my first few thoughts after that. first, this can't be happening. a very typical response that i have read about in other accidents. followed immediately by, this does not happen to me. in other words, i have been fined for 42 years and i have never been challenged by anything. my third top was more of a realization, that unlike any other flight i have had for 42 years, this one would probably not end on a runway with the aircraft undamaged. i was ok with that, as long as i could solve the underlying problem. charlie: pilots face the same decision, how many would have done it? chesley: there's no way to know, but i am convinced that a lot of my colleagues would find a way to save the lives of their passengers.

charlie: what could have gone wrong on the hudson? chesley: if we had not had the wings exactly level, it would have sprung us around and the aircraft might have broken apart. it would not have floated long enough for the rescue to take place. if we had misjudged the height of the landing, even at a fraction of a second, we were coming down so rapidly. charlie: you are coming down to

floors per second in terms of what? chesley: in terms of vehicle limit. i had to judge the height to begin exercising the only control i had at the vertical height pack. if i had missed judge did and ended up at two hi a height, if i did it too late, we would have touched too fast. i had to time it just so. seeing the world rushing up at us, and knowing now is the time to begin pulling. if i was off by a fraction or a quarter of a second, we would not have been able to touch at the proper place, with the proper attitude, with the proper rate of descent. i was shooting for 10 degrees nose up. i got to 9.8. i was shooting for a zero degree of wing level. my right wing was down one half of one degree. charlie: you did everything right then? chesley: working with jeff, we were together as a team. we managed the workload and to not get distracted.

doing a very well job. charlie: did you make any mistakes? chesley: of course, but it worked. charlie: any nightmares after? chesley: for a few days, yes. charlie: it changed your life forever? chesley: completely. good talking with you charlie. ♪

mark: let's begin with the check of first word news. president obama and congressional leaders are meeting at the white house trying to everett a government shutdown at the end of the month. among the items on the agenda are a funding bill to fight the zika virus. the bill is the only must pass piece of legislation ahead of the november presidential election. the cease-fire in syria rocard over the weekend by washington and moscow is underway. the garment provides a window for potential government strikes until the u.s. and russia again joint coordinated attacks in a week. the truce was timed to coincide with the start of the muslim holiday. eu leaders will meet in malta to discuss the road ahead after britain leaves.