As the tensions involving North Korea’s attempts to further its nuclear program ramp up, President Trump has told Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that his efforts to negotiate are wasted. Rather than comment on the nature of Trump’s statement or speculate on any hidden meanings, I seek to make the case against the idea that diplomacy should ever be abandoned.

When I played chess, I learned the saying, “Nobody has ever won by resigning.” Think of the situation between the United States and North Korea as a simple game. Our objective is to resolve the conflict using entirely peaceful means. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the military cannot be an effective tool. In fact, we should utilize controlled military pressure and deterrents to ensure that our diplomatic pressures are respected. However, giving up on diplomacy is tantamount to throwing in the towel before the game is lost. In our modern world, filled with destructive weapons of incredible force and range, we should do our absolute best to fully use diplomatic methods because the payoff for a peaceful resolution is so high and the alternative is so terrible.

From a different angle, the potential gains of abandoning diplomacy are almost negligible. Economically, we either gain trivial amounts or nothing. Militarily, we gain virtually nothing. Politically, we gain a reputation for failing to resolve issues diplomatically, which is undoubtedly negative. Whatever macho posturing or perceived international power projection we supposedly gained from cutting diplomatic ties can be soundly offset by the previously stated disadvantages and the eventual realization that the problem won’t actually be solved by running away from it.

In the past, the United States has cut its diplomatic relations with Cuba and Iran, believing that doing so would isolate these countries and eventually force them into substantial policy changes favorable to the United States. Ultimately, that has not worked: although the suspension of diplomatic relations may have been somewhat useful in the short-term, as long as the targeted country survived the initial political backlash, they were able to remain entrenched. In essence, these attempts to abandon diplomacy solved superficial problems and applied short-term pressure, but failed to attack the root of the problem or progress towards long-term solutions.

When a country cuts diplomatic ties with another, it should be motivated by frustrations far beyond human tolerance and a complete and utter lack of any progress at all. As long as the dialogue stays open, there is always the potential for improvement. That alone is almost always enough to judge that diplomacy should not be abandoned. In the specific case of resolving the issue surrounding North Korea’s ambitions towards intercontinental ballistic missiles, the United States should absolutely not abandon diplomacy with any of the countries in East Asia, especially China, the nation in the region that has the most relative influence over North Korea. Simply put, the probability of a successful peaceful resolution of the North Korean crisis is not zero. Thus, completely abandoning diplomacy is non-optimal at best and recklessly irresponsible at worst.

For a guy who’s all about winning and keeping our options open, it would be quite ironic if Donald Trump actually instructed his diplomats and State Department staff to cease from trying to solve the North Korea issue diplomatically. So when Trump tweeted, “Save your energy Rex… we’ll do what has to be done!” I hope that means that the United States will thoroughly and rationally consider the options of all players until the crisis is averted — or the world has ended.