Solution on North Korea Nuke

by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

North Korea proclaimed that she tested a nuclear device on October 9, 2006. The UN Resolution 1718 was passed unanimously in the Security Council on October 14, 2006. This resolution is, in fact, a prize for every actor of this event.

  1. North Korea:
  2. America:
  3. Russia:
    Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that Moscow got what it wanted -- a strong resolution but one that is also aimed at "prevention of a further escalation of tension."
  4. China:
I. Dreaming different dreams

II. Types of world order
  1. Compartmentalization
  2. Two types of world order
  3. How to stay as #1 indefinitely?
III. Knowing about our opponent
  1. One example: about China
  2. The oldest encryption technology
  3. Culture geneticalization and its meaning
IV. The solution for North Korea Nuke.

I. Dreaming different dreams

There is a Chinese proverb describing this situation as 同 床 異 夢 (Sleeping in the same bed, yet dreaming different dreams.) The nutshell of this North Korea nuke problem is that many countries do not trust America. Both Russia and China are willing to have a few nuke neighbors (right at their door steps) because not only are those nukes not a threat to them but are their guarding door men for their security. Guarding against who? Of course, against America. This is a cruel and harsh reality.

China, in fact, has the necessary instrument to stop North Korea going nuclear. However, it is not a bad thing for China at all for North Korea having a few nuke bombs when the America's China policy is as it is. The general consensus of Chinese people is that a military conflict between America and China is inevitable, although China is now an ally of America both on the war against terrorism and on the issue of North Korea Nuke.

In fact, the North Korea nuke can be rolled back and the Iran nuke can be stopped if both Russia and China are dreaming the same dream the same as America's. This is called 交 心 (exchange hearts) in Chinese. 交 心 is a total trust, no back stabbing, no leg pulling.

II. Types of world order


As a hegemony, to compartmentalize diplomatic issues is the proudest invention of America's foreign policy. In fact, the compartmentalization is invented by God. The growth of all embryos is compartmentalized. The growth of a nose has nothing to do with the growth of eyes. Of course, the nose will not rob the nutrient from the eyes in this compartmentalizing growth process. If it did, we call it a cancer. That is, for a non-cancerous compartmentalizing process, there must be a total trust among one another, no back stabbing, no leg pulling. Without a total 交 心 (exchange hearts) , any compartmentalizing process is just an act of bully, and it will be deal with 同 床 異 夢 (sleeping in the same bed while dreaming different dreams).

Worst yet, in order to keep them in the same bed, we must pretend that we do not know that they are dreaming different dreams.

Two types of world order

Of course, this world is not an embryo which has a single-minded dream. Thus, our strategy is to form a life force which is able to enforce a unified dream, that is, to divide this world into two teams. And, there are two ways, at least, to make such a division.
  1. Method one: There are two possible outcomes for this world.
    1. Team A (total energy) < Team B (total energy)
      Then, this is a very bad strategy for the #1.
    2. Team A (total energy) > Team B (total energy)
      At this case, Team B still has a change to hold an upper-hand by directing Team A's energy away from its main body, such as toward to the remainder (B). This could be the real case of the present world situation. The #1 America is now bogging- and bogged-down by:
      • North Korea,
      • Iran,
      • Iraq and Afghanistan,
      • Israel and Arab conflict.
      Are these issues true concern for Team B? Of course, not! The true concern of Team B is how to exhaust the energy of Team A. Anything else is secondary. Why should China worry about the North Korea nuke while that nuke is single-minded aiming at America? Any word from China about a punitive measure on North Korea is just a "We are in the same bed game."
    This type of world order can be called as World (I) Order

  2. Method two: In this case, there is very little chance that Team B could be larger than Team A even mathematically, and there is almost no chance of any kind for that politically. When there is no chance to balance the power of Team A, the #3 and #4 might not have any will to stay in Team B. That is, if there still has a remainder (B), such as North Korea and Iran, etc., it is no longer anything but some nuisances.

    This type of world order can be called as World (II) Order.

How to stay as #1 indefinitely?

Furthermore, by definition, #3 is not a simple ranking number; it is the challenger on #2. That is, #3 is not a challenger for #1. The only one who can challenge the #1 is #2, by definition. And there are only two ways for #1 to stay as #1.

Of these two cases, which one is achievable?
In Chinese Yijing, the #1 can never, never stay as #1 forever. Of course, Yijing is not a science, and it is viewed as nonsense by many scientists. However, we can calculate this Yijing premise mathematically and theoretically. First, we need to prove a law (or a theorem).

Law one: In a race, the front runner spends much more energy than the #2 does.
That is, the #2 can often win a marathon race.

We can prove this law inductively first.
  1. In a marathon race, the winning is decided by the fact that who has more energy reserve at the last half mile. Thus, the best strategy for a runner is to stay a few steps behind the front runner who breaks the wind for him. Not only can this strategy pressure the front runner psychologically tremendously, but it does in fact save a tiny bit of energy. This tiny difference on energy expenditure will often decide the outcome.
  2. Bill Gates spent only $50,000 for buying the first DOS. The expense of the DOS inventor was the losing of billions.
  3. The inventor of Jello sold his patent for $1,000, and his lost was also in billions.
  4. The computer chip technology was invented by America. Yet, Taiwan became the largest IT producer.
  5. The internet search engine was invented by Yahoo. Yet, Google dominates the market now.
  6. The IBM pc can never compete with the compatible pc. In science and technology, the most difficult question is that whether it can be done or not. This question will exhaust 80% of research energy. The cost for a "reverse engineering" will never be amount to more than 20% of the invention cost. As soon as the question of whether the nuclear chain reaction can happen is answered, how to make a bomb becomes a given. Thus, it took only three years for Russia to make a nuclear bomb. As soon as the question of whether the Atlantic Ocean can be crossed with a plane is answered by Lindbergh, the second flight becomes just a routine.
Now, we can rewrite the law one:

Law one: The cost of any invention is many times more than the cost of its "reverse engineering."

With Law one in hand, we now are able to calculate the question of whether #1 can stay as #1 indefinitely. Let's consider the following situation. Now, we are able to calculate,
#1 (total energy, nth year) - #2 (total energy, nth year)
= X (nth year, +/-)
= X (now, +) + Y (y1, +/-) + ... + Y(yn, +/-) .......... Equation two

The X (nth year) can be a positive or negative number which depends upon the Y values. There are a few factors which determine the Y values.
  1. D (nth year) = #1 (cost, 100 items) - #2 (cost, 100 items)
    According to Law one, D (n) is always a positive number for #1. Now, we can redefine D (n) as a negative number for the Y values calculation, as D (n, -).
  2. E (nth year) = #1 (profit, 100 items) - #2 (profit, 100 items)
    Superficially, E (n) should be a positive number for #1. But, this might not be the case because that there is an aging and metabolism factor.
    There are many more such examples. With this aging and metabolism factor, we can induce a new law, the Law Two.

    Law Two: New technology can be easily written on a white page than on an aged and used page.

    Although the E value can be protected somewhat by the copyright law, we still cannot truly determine that E (n) should be a positive or a negative number for the #1. At this point, I would like to suggest to remove E (n) from the calculation of Y values.
  3. The hegemony cost.
  4. The unknown cost or profit, U (unknown) which can be a positive or a negative number for the Y values. Yet, one thing we are certain,
    U (n)/U (n-1) is equal to or smaller than the growth rate of #1. Thus, during a period when the growth rate of #2 is equal to or larger than #1's, then at n = r (r, in this period) , U (n) - U (n-1) <= 0. That is, during this period, the U (n) has a decreasing trend.
Now, we are able to calculate the Y values for #1. By knowing how to calculate the Y values, we are now able to calculate the Equation two. The premises for the above calculations are all clearly defined. If they are wrong, then these calculations are meaningless. If the equations are not complete and some factors are missing, then we can always correct the errors. At any rate, it gives a hint or an indication that Yijing's premise that "the #1 can never, never stay as #1 indefinitely" is not a nonsense after all. In fact, in Yijing's theory, the #1 and the #2 must oscillate. Yet, in Laotze theory, #1 can indeed stay as #1 if it pretends to be a #2 always.

Note: Many experts are hoping that the #2 will collapse. Yes, one #2 can collapse, two #2 can collapse, and..., many more #2 can collapse. Yet, one day, there will be one #2 who can walk through the above equations. So, those kind of hopes are not science but wishful thinking.

Now, we are able to conclude a new law, Law Three.

Law Three: The only way to stay as #1 indefinitely is that the #2 has no intention to challenge the #1.

III. How much we know about our opponent?

In fact, another factor can be added to the above equations, the intelligence cost. This cost cannot truly be measured with any dollar value. Without the intelligence, we cannot even locate where Bin Laden is, and the cost of lacking such an intelligence is immeasurable. This cost consists of, at least, the followings: In 孫 子 兵 法 (The Art of War by (Suntze), written 2000 years ago), its first chapter 始 計 篇 is about the equations of war. It lists five equations of war. It claims that it will be a disaster to enter into a war without calculating these five equations first. Yet, the only way to calculate these equations are having the correct data, as it says 知 己 知 彼 , 百 戰 百 勝 (Knowing ourselves and knowing our opponent, we will win 100 times in 100 wars). Knowing ourselves but not knowing our opponent, then winning or not is up to the good luck.

One example: about China

To maintain the #1 position is, in fact, a war. Then, how much we know about our opponent? One possible challenger is China. How much we know about China?

Dr. F.S.C. Northrop wrote a book, The Meeting of East and West -- an Inquiry Concerning World Understanding. It was copyrighted in 1946. The third printing was in 1968, 38 years ago. That is, Dr. Northrop was one of the most prominent Chinese culture experts in America. So, his understanding about Chinese culture can represent the depth and the scope of America's understanding of Chinese culture.

Dr. Northrop wrote in his book, " The Easterner, on the other hand, uses bits of linguistic symbolism, largely denotative, and often purely ideographic in character, to point toward a component in the nature of things which only immediate experience and continued contemplation can convey. This shows itself especially in the symbols of the Chinese language, where each solitary, immediately experienced local particular tends to have its own symbol, this symbol also often having a directly observed form like that of the immediately seen item of direct experience which it denotes. For example , the symbol for man in Chinese is 人 , and the early symbol for house is . As a consequence, there was no alphabet. This automatically eliminates the logical whole-part relation between one symbol and another that occurs in the linguistic symbolism of the West in which all words are produced by merely putting together in different permutations the small number of symbols constituting the alphabet. (page 316, The Meeting of East and West, The Macmillian Company, 1968).

"In many cases, however, the content of the sign itself, that is, the actual shape of the written symbol, is identical with the immediately sensed character of the factor in experience for which it stands. These traits make the ideas which these symbols convey particulars rather than logical universals, and largely denotative rather than connotative in character.

Certain consequences follow. Not only are the advantages of an alphabet lost, but also there tend to be as many symbols as there are simple and complex impressions. Consequently, the type of knowledge which a philosophy constructed by means of such a language can convey tends necessarily to be one given by a succession of concrete, immediately apprehendable examples and illustrations, the succession of these illustrations having no logical ordering or connection the one with the other. ...

... Moreover, even the common-sense examples are conveyed with aesthetic imagery, the emphasis being upon the immediately apprehended, sensuous impression itself more than upon the external common-sense object of which the aesthetic impression is the sign. Nowhere is there even the suggestion by the aesthetic imagery of a postulated scientific or a doctrinally formulated, theological object. All the indigenously Chinese philosophies, Taoism as well as Confucianism, support this verdict." (page 322, ibid).

Dr. Northrop was not simply discussing Chinese culture but was giving a verdict. His verdict has the following two points.
  1. About the Chinese writing language (Chinese words): Denotative and solitary -- no logical ordering or connection the one with the other.
  2. The consequence of such a language: No chance of any kind to formulate scientific, philosophical and theological objects.
Well, let's examine whether his verdict is correct or not. Let's examine three words, (compassion), (fly) and (dragon).

Why is the word (compassion) written as it is? As a mental expression, how can it be denoted? It is, in fact, constructed with the following steps.
  1. The word means man, a denotative pictograph word.
  2. The word (the right part of the word ) means change or transformation. It is the result of turning the word upside down. When a man is turned upside down, it is a transformation or a change. Is this a denotative word?
  3. The word now is known as north. Its left side is, in fact, the mirror image of the right one. Thus, the original meaning is two transformations back to back, which means opposite, such as North is the opposite of South. Thus, the word means the back side of the body. Is a denotative word?
  4. The word is formed by stacking two , and it means "opposite to the utmost." Now, it is known as "not," "is not," or "wrong." Again, is this a denotative word?
  5. The word is a denotative pictograph word for heart. Yet, it has a connotative meaning as "ego" or "self."
Now, the meaning of the word can be read out from its face as 非 心 , pulling the heart apart or annihilating the ego. Furthermore, in order to identify clearly of which meaning it carries, a pointer is added, and they form a phrase. If this word is denotative, it has denoting with many, many, many turns. Furthermore, how can it be a solitary symbol while it borrows so much from other words?

Of course, one example can always happen as an incidence. So, let's check out one more example.

Can you see that how the word (fly) is constructed? Why does F + L + Y mean fly? Fly means rising from the ground or pushing away from the ground. So, the word fly should be constructed with word roots of "rising" and "pushing away." It is, indeed, the case in Chinese. The word has three radicals, radical (, rising). The top part is formed by stacking two right side of the word which means pulling or pushing apart. By stacking two together, it means pushing away very, very, very hard. Yet, pushing to what direction? Rising ()!

Again, two examples could still be an coincidence. So, let's check out one more example.

Why should D + R + A + G + O + N mean dragon? In the legend, a dragon is an animal which can fly, can transform and can violate the nature laws. Now, would you be surprised that the word must mean dragon.
  1. Left-top: , violating above.
  2. Left-bottom: , as an animal.
  3. Right-top: (right side of the word , transformation).
  4. Right-bottom: Top part of the word .
In fact, there is another word root on the right side, and it connects the top (transformation) and the bottom (fly). It is a word root for "disappear(ing)." Dragon can fly and transform to what? To disappear!

Well, what should we think about the verdict of Dr. Northrop now? If he is right, then there is no gene of logic nor gene of science in the Chinese language. Without getting rid of Chinese language, Chinese would have a hard time to convey the modern technology and science. That is, there would be no internal energy in Chinese culture to make China a modern country. Of course, there would be no chance of any kind for her to be a challenger to America.

If he was wrong, he had greatly misled the American people. There are over 60,000 Chinese words, and only 70 of them are meeting Dr. Northrop's definition of denotative words: "... having a directly observed form like that of the immediately seen item of direct experience which it denotes" (page 316, ibid).

Now, I am arbitrarily listing a few more words here for us to check out his verdict further. The words of tiger, deer, red, green, flute and thread are denotative in meanings. Yet, it is very clear that they are composed of word roots. Can any other words listed above meet Dr. Northrop's definition of denotative words? It would be an very interesting bet if anyone is able to find 100 pure (100%) Northrop denotative Chinese words: "...related merely as the items in the concrete, individual aesthetic experience are associated, ..." (page 319, ibid).

Without knowing our opponent, the best chance for winning a contest is by a good luck. Without a true understanding of the mentality of Iraqi people, the war on peace in Iraq becomes very difficult now.

Again, Dr. Northrop wrote in his book, "Since the symbols tend to be related merely as the items in the concrete, individual aesthetic experience are associated, the rules of grammar are less definite. Thus Lin Yutang points out that while this type of symbolism results in especially good poetry, it cannot compare with the language of the West in producing excellent prose. The reason is clear, as he has emphasized. In poetry the premium is upon rearing, in the immediately introspected imagination of the reader, with a minimum of symbols, the maximum amount of rich, subtly related, immediately felt aesthetic content. In prose the premium is upon a grammatical and logical ordering of the subject matter. Here the Chinese language, because of its fluidity, is at a disadvantage." (page 319, ibid)

Dr. Northrop's above saying has the following points: Indeed, before the 20th century, there was not a single book written on Chinese grammar. There were a few books about rhetoric. In the early of the 20th century, many Chinese scholars (such as, Lin Yutang, Hu Shih 胡 適 , etc.) invented a new Chinese grammar by copying the English grammar. That is, everything in English grammar which is useable in Chinese language is imported. In addition to the fluidity, the adaptability of Chinese language was so great, and it was able to live with an English-like grammar. Today, 99% of Chinese writings (books or newspapers) are using this new grammar which is now having the grammatical and logical ordering.

Yet, I want to demonstrate some facts here for you. Well, without a set of very precise, precise,..., precise rules, those two pages can never, never,..., never be read as a single prose. Before my book "Chinese Word Roots and Grammar," there was, indeed, not a single book discussed about this kind of Chinese grammar for the past five thousand years. It will take good solid 15 years, at least, of hard study for a native Chinese to grasp these rules. Then, why was no one trying to write down these rules for five thousand years? The following answers might not be making any sense to the Westerners.

The oldest encryption technology

Today, 99% of native Chinese is unable to read those two pages. The chance for CIA to find a person who is able to read those two pages is very small. Yet, in China, there are still some able to write in this fashion.

This two thousand years old Chinese language can be an encrypted language which can never be de-coded with computer, and it has three levels of encryption.
  1. The spirit-chee punctuation system.

  2. There is another tradition of Chinese language, the esoteric writings -- although an essay can be punctuated with the spirit-chee system but its meaning is in codes. This kind of coding system can never be decoded with computer. For example, a "word (a)" appears in an essay 20 times, but only one of them, "word (a, 15)", is a coded word. For computer, 20 of them are all identical. Yet, in the spirit-chee system, the "word (a, 15)" can be easily identified as a coded word. The meaning of the 19 words can be found in the dictionary, but the meaning of the coded "word (a, 15)" must be found in the code book.

  3. In the (dragon) example, one Chinese sentence can be written as one word. There are many other such examples:
    • means 不 正 (not straight).
    • means 不 用 (won't be used).
    • (evil) means (ugly) (heart), ugly heart is evil.
    • etc.
    The above examples are straight forward. Yet, the word is composed with word roots, and 99.9999...% of native Chinese does not know about those word roots. That is, there is no chance for them to read out its meaning from the face of the word. A new word can be written in such a manner, and no one is able to know its meaning if he does not know about those word roots.
With such a system, Chinese military can give the CIA the code book and communicates with black-white pages while CIA has no chance to decode them.

Culture geneticalization and its meanings

Dr. Northrop was, in fact, one of the best Sinologist in America of all time. He was a good friend of two Chinese scholars, Lin Yutang ( 林 語 堂 ) and Hu Shih ( 胡 適 ) , and these two are two of the best Chinese Sinologists in the 20th century. Those sayings in Dr. Northrop's book are also the views of these two great Chinese Sinologists. That is, both Lin and Hu did not truly know that Chinese writing language is an 100% root word system, although they two were experts on the Spirit-Chee punctuation system.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, many Chinese scholars began to accuse that the Chinese language (especially the writing language) was the culprit for China's misfortune and turmoil at those days. For them, each Chinese word is a stand alone character without a clear logic framework, exactly the same as the description of Dr. Northrop. Thus, Chinese writing language was accused as the reason that China did not develop science. Furthermore, memorizing six to ten thousand ad hoc characters is not only a gigantic work but a huge waste of young person's youth. Thus, in 1958, a major effort to simplify the Chinese word system was launched. That is, at that time, no one in China knew that Chinese writing language is an 100% root word system. By knowing only 220 word roots, the meaning of every 60,000 Chinese characters can be read out from the structure of the word itself. By knowing only 220 word roots, Chinese writing language is as simple as the high school geometry. By knowing only 220 word roots, any foreigner who knows not a single Chinese word can master Chinese writing language with six months of hard study.

Then, why was there no one who knew that Chinese writing language is an 100% root word system? Well, if every foreigner can master Chinese writing language in six months, the soul of Chinese culture will be dismembered by foreigners in no time. Thus, there were many significant efforts to hide the secret of how the Chinese word system was constructed.

  1. " 說 文 解 字 " the only authoritative book on Chinese word system (written two thousand years ago) proclaimed that 80% of Chinese words are pictographs of concrete items. Many Chinese Etymology books showed that was an abstract drawing of a real tiger and 鹿 was a pictograph of a real deer. Of course, how to draw the picture of (hollow), (abuse), ..., and of (celebrate), (recommendation) was never discussed.
    In Chinese culture, the sayings of the ancient could not be challenged. Indeed, no one ever challenges the above saying for two thousand years.
  2. There are 15% of word roots are mixed up. Examples:
    • The in the word (having ...something) means moon. The in the word (muscle) means meat.
    • The in the word mean short feather. The in the word means a curved stick.
    • The right-top part of means a "cross - cross structure." The same part in the word means weeds.
  3. When a word root becomes a stand alone word, it changes its meaning.
    • as a word root in the words 幸 、 赤 means large. When it is a stand alone word, it means earth.
    • as a word root in the words 辛 、 音 、 竟 means "violating above (such as, master, Heaven, etc.)." When it is a stand alone word, it means stand or standing.
  4. Many word roots (85%) are not stand alone words. No one ever knows about their meanings. They were viewed as some meaningless fillers to make up words.
Well, the best way to keep this supreme secret from foreigners is to keep it from all Chinese first. Native Chinese has a lifetime to learn the Chinese writing language leisurely anyway. When a foreigner has learned the Chinese language in the same way, he will have been Sinicized. That is, Chinese culture has been geneticalized. For foreigners, Chinese culture is a collection of some loosely bounded traits without a system and without a logical ordering or connection the one with the others.

Dr. Northrop wrote, "... One can experience the Orient by going there. Yet after doing this while studying the language for months or even years, it is possible to come away with certain basic, key, inescapable, intuitive impressions, yet possessing not even the slightest comprehension of what these experiences mean. (page 320, ibid)

"When one attempts to determine precisely what this ordering principle in society is and what the single thread is which runs through all the sayings of Confucius, the task is by no means easy. In the actual arrangement of the sayings of Confucius himself in the Analects, as these sayings appear in the Chinese texts, there does not seem to be any ordering principle. Much of order of Confucius's remarks has been put there by translators who have taken the Chinese symbols out of the order in which they appear in the manuscripts, and have thrown together those groups referring to similar matters. Moreover, .... It is likely also that the portion of the Confucian teaching which seeps down into the sentiments and consciousness of the general populace is the more disconnected influence of the Analects rather than the more systematic doctrine." (page 325-326, ibid)

Indeed, this is a precise description of a geneticalized culture. A geneticalized culture can never be dismembered or uprooted. A geneticalized culture can never truly be understood by a foreigner, as the native themselves do not know anything about their own genes while they are acting out with those traits. Without a true understanding of the opponent, a super power is not able to guarantee a final victory even with an 100 or 1000 times of military superiority. A geneticalized culture is the best defense for a culture.

However, the term of culture geneticalization is not my invention. It is the central doctrine in both Confucianism and Laotze Taoism. Above sayings were not some theories or doctrines. They were implemented in Chinese culture. In order to fool the foreigner, the native Chinese must be fooled first. The word "breve" pronounces as "brev." The word "love" pronounces as "luv." And, these are straight forward in English. But, why the following Chinese words pronounce as they are?
  1. pronounces as "gee."
  2. pronounces as "ionn."
  3. can pronounce as "chin" or as "kaon."
  4. 調 can pronounce as "deuw" or as "teol."
  5. etc.
The above words are not phonetic loan words. That is, they do not have a sound-carrier. Then, how to determine their sounds? Of course, there are some very precise rules. Yet, it will be a very interesting bet to see that how many native Chinese know about those rules. I bet that 99.9999...% of native Chinese will not know about the reasons and the rules. Those pronunciations are remembered as they are. No question was asked for thousands of years, out of billions Chinese people. Is this dumb? Or, is it a great design of a geneticalized culture?

The Chinese culture is not a mysticism, but it has transformed itself to be a great mystery for the native Chinese people. Of course, it becomes a collection of traits which have no logical ordering or connection the one with the other for Westerners, someone like Dr. Northrop. Thus, the Westerners cannot truly believe that Chinese culture can challenge the West. This is the premise of the Cox report. The reason that China can develop the most advanced weaponry is because that China has stolen them from America. The true conclusion of the Cox report is that China can never challenge America. And, this is the precise point that a geneticalized culture wants its opponent to reach.

The solution for North Korea Nuke

The North Korea Nuke issue can have two outcomes.

  1. It is rolled back, and Korean peninsula becomes nuclear-weapons free.
  2. It is a game between some great powers. That is, the Iran nuke issue will be the next round of the same game.
As America was unable to stop North Korea for the nuclear test this time, why should North Korea believe that America holds a secret formula which is able to roll her back?

With the America's China policy today, the World (I) Order depicts the current world order. That is, In this situation, team A can be easily balanced with the following tactics:
  1. Direct team A's energy toward to remainder (B), such as, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and others.
  2. Pamper team A with 同 床 異 夢 (Sleeping in the same bed, yet dreaming different dreams).
That is, the nuke issues are the games, and they will be played for awhile.

Only if America can bring either Russia or China into team A (forming the World (II) Order), those nuke issues will be solved. Can this be done by America? Which one is the better candidate, Russia or China?

With the Cold War history, and as long as China is not officially in team A, Russia might not have a strong desire to join team A by herself. On the other hand, there are two reasons for China to enter into the World (II) Order with America.
  1. Historically, China was always a continental power and did not have any worldwide ambition. In the 13th century, China did not colonize any foreign land after some great sea voyages.
  2. There is a 孔 老 二 (number two is the best) tradition in Chinese culture, in both Confucianism and Laotze Taoism. Please read the article "Chinese culture and the world security at
    That is, Chinese culture has no desire to be a hegemony power.
Although China truly has no desire of any kind to gain the hegemony power, as it is not anything valuable for her, yet, the general consensus of Chinese people today is that a military conflict between America and China is inevitable. The misunderstanding and the mistrust between America and China are simply running too deep.

According to Law three, America's sole superpower status can be maintained indefinitely only if the potential challenger has no desire to challenge it.

This is, indeed, possible. Of course, it takes true knowledge and true understanding. When this happens, not only can America stay as #1 indefinitely but all nuke issues are no longer problems.

To view the copies of those two pages