6 reasons why the U.S. should not underestimate CCP’s nuclear threat

Hi, everyone. Welcome to Ladies World Talk. Hi. It's August the 8th. In Chinese culture, it's a very auspicious day. In theory, we should be talking about financial matters, but given the market volatility this week, I don't know what I can say about money matters. So let's talk about something that's equally important, if not more. Let's talk about the CCP's nuclear threat. When I posted the description of this live stream, I said four reasons. By the time I was getting ready for this live stream, I came up with six reasons. So don't be surprised if you see the title. It has changed from four reasons to six reasons now. And I think the two other reasons are equally important, if not more. So the reason that I want to talk to you about this is on July 22nd, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a document titled, China's Work Document on No First Use of Nuclear Weapon Initiative. The statement asserts that China will not be the first one to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversarial states. The release of this document is timed with a UN meeting, which is the second session of the preparatory committee for the review conference of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in Geneva, Switzerland, which opened on the same day, July 22nd. The Chinese regime has called on the United States to adopt a no-first-use policy for nuclear weapons, and also to abandon the nuclear umbrella it extends to European and Asian allies. The US doesn't have a no-first-use policy for nuclear weapons. The US Nuclear Posture Review states that the US reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first in extreme situations to defend its vital interests, allies, and partners from nuclear attacks or significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. China's call for the US to adopt the no-first-use policy and also to abandon the nuclear umbrella protection to non-nuclear allies is suspicious. However, there have been voices coming from American think tanks that have responded positively to China's call for the US to adopt the no-first-use policy. This would be a step in the wrong direction because if adopted, the US would leave Japan and South Korea vulnerable to North Korea and China and Europe to Russia. What prompted me to do this live stream is I think it's important that Americans understand CCP's nuclear threats so that they don't misjudge. There are six reasons why the US should not underestimate CCP's nuclear threat. The six reasons are all tied to CCP's nuclear strategies. Let's go over them one by one. The first is CCP's expansion of nuclear arsenal is the fastest in the world. The CCP detonated its first atomic bomb in 1964 and long ignored the UN's NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, although the treaty recognized China as one of its five nuclear armed states. So, China ignored that until it joined after the end of the Cold War in 1992. Now, the CCP has always had a special interest in nuclear weapons. Even during the Great Famine that killed tens of millions of Chinese in the early 1960s, the Chinese military was working on its nuclear bomb, missiles, and satellite programs. The PLA's founding marshal, Chen Yi, once notoriously said, even if our poverty prevents us from having pants to wear, we must develop a nuclear bomb. Okay, no pants, but we must have a nuclear bomb. All right. At the time, due to its lack of resources, the CCP controlled the scale of its nuclear development for a long time, focusing on only small quantity and good quality. I think it was Mao's words, shao yi dian, you yi dian, shao yi dian, hao yi dian, which means we've got to have it, but we could have just a little, not a whole lot, but we've got to have a nuclear bomb. Even a little bit is fine, but we need to focus on quality. That's the directive at the time. But after China joined the WTO and with the influx of foreign capitals, the regime began large-scale nuclear expansion, which continues to today. Now, the West hasn't or hadn't paid attention to CCP's fast expansion in nuclear programs until 2020, during the Trump administration, when the Department of Defense's annual report on CCP's military and security developments. The report publicly estimated China's nuclear capabilities for the first time. So, it was 2020 when the Pentagon first publicly estimated China's nuclear capabilities in its report called CCP's Military and Security Developments. The Pentagon estimated that China had doubled its nuclear warheads in 10 years and had over 200 nuclear warheads, because prior to that, China had been maintaining about 100 nuclear warheads for a long time. So now, in 2020, they estimated it's 200. With the deployment of nuclear-capable strategic bombers capable of aerial refueling, the Chinese had also established a triad of land, sea, and air-based nuclear forces. The report projected that China could double its nuclear warhead stockpile to around 400 warheads within the next decade. That was 2020. And then on January 14, 2021, the day before leaving office, former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo published an article with then-Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control. His name is Marshall Billingslea. Excuse me if I'm not pronouncing your name right. So, the report that Mike Pompeo co-authored is called The Madness of China's Nuclear Buildup. They stated that for two decades, Beijing has been engaged in an asymmetric arms race and conceding its nuclear development and becoming increasingly aggressive and expansionist. Now, the international community really started to focus on CCP's nuclear programs in 2021. So, in the subsequent annual reports, the American government significantly raised its estimates of China's nuclear arsenal. So, the 2021 report suggested that China's nuclear warheads would increase from the current 350, it was no longer 200, it's 350, to 700 by 2027, and exceed 1000 by 2030. The 2022 report warned that China now has over 400 nuclear warheads, nearly doubling in just two years. It indicated that China's accelerated nuclear expansion could lead to a stockpile of about 1500 warheads by 2035. And then the 2023 report stated that as of May 2023, China had over 500 operational nuclear warheads. So, this fast expansion is in direct contrast to the global effort in reducing nuclear arsenal since the end of the Cold War. At its peak, I want to give you some numbers. At its peak in mid-1980s, the Soviet Union had between 40,000 to 45,000 nuclear warheads. Currently, Russia has about 6400 nuclear warheads, including 1700 deployed ones. So, it has about 6400 and 1700 are deployed. The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration reported that as of September 2023, the U.S. nuclear arsenal comprised 3748 nuclear warheads, more than half of what Russia has. From fiscal year 1994 to the year 2023, the U.S. has dismantled over 12,000 nuclear warheads, with an additional 2000 waiting to be disposed. So, you see, this is as Russia and the United States dismantling retiring warheads, China is fast expanding. So, that's the first reason. The second reason is the second threat is that CCP's lack of transparency and refusal to participate in U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control negotiations. During the Cold War, the U.S. and former Soviet Union were the only two nuclear superpowers in the world. Today, there are nine nuclear armed states, the U.S., Russia, France, China, the U.K., Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. Like I said, Russia possesses the largest nuclear arsenal, followed by the U.S. with China in the third place. Of the five nuclear superpowers, which are also the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. openly publishes the Nuclear Posture Review and exchanges data with Russia every six months. France and U.K. also periodically publish statements detailing the number and also types of nuclear weapons in their arsenals. However, Beijing refuses to adopt these procedures, making the non-transparency policy its preferred strategy. Why does the CCP make a non-transparency its preferred strategy? It claims that this is a way for weaker countries to deter stronger opponents, such as the U.S. As for refusing to participate in the U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control negotiation, the CCP's excuse is that its nuclear capability is far below that of U.S. and Russia. Although there is indeed a significant quantitative gap between CCP's nuclear arsenal and that of the U.S. and Russia, the speed at which China is expanding its program is alarming. Even during the Cold War, the Soviets and the Americans still played by the rules, but the CCP won't. Its refusal to participate in U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control negotiation is a sign of its hidden agenda. It means something. The third dangerous nuclear policy of the CCP is nuclear convention entanglement. What it means is conventional weapons are combat-ready weapons, always prepared for battlefield use. In contrast, nuclear weapons are strategic deterrent weapons designed to prevent the adversaries from using nuclear weapons. There must be a clear distinction between the two. The U.S. has always emphasized maintaining this distinction. During the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. military considered replacing some nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles aboard strategic submarines with conventional warheads. This would allow a strategic submarine armed with both nuclear and conventional missiles to be more flexible in carrying out military operations. However, this approach can cause the adversaries to misinterpret not knowing what warhead it actually carried. For instance, if the U.S. launched a missile with a conventional warhead at Russia, Russia's warning system might not be able to determine whether it's a nuclear warhead or not. Russia might immediately launch a nuclear counterattack and potentially lead to a large-scale nuclear war. To avoid such misinterpretation, the U.S. eventually abandoned the idea. This thinking shows you that even in time of war, there are rules and protocols to follow, and one cannot be reckless. However, that's not the case with the CCP. It thinks people's ability to follow rules is a sign of weakness. In recent years, the CCP has developed and deployed new missiles that deliberately mix conventional and nuclear warheads, such as the Dongfeng-26, DF-26, which has the capability to be equipped with either conventional warheads or nuclear warheads. Moreover, the CCP's rocket force, which has both nuclear and conventional strike capabilities, has their force composition including mixed brigades of nuclear and conventional missile launch units. In terms of organization, they're mixed. Both types of units are commanded through the same command chain, the same control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance system from the rocket force headquarters to base command. From the West's perspective, this type of organization poses great risks because it can potentially lead to misinterpretation and unintended nuclear escalation. For example, if an adversary were to attack a Chinese rocket force base with a conventional missile, it could trigger the nuclear decision-making mechanism of the command within the PLA and potentially lead to an outbreak of a nuclear war. From the West's perspective, this is a risk. However, from the CCP's perspective, it's their advantage because this setup, from their perspective, would deter potential attacks because they know that the civilized world doesn't want to inadvertently start a nuclear war by misjudging it and will be very careful. The CCP has developed their organizational chart and their strategies around that. From the West's perspective, it's tremendously dangerous. Number four, some Americans might feel that they can handle the CCP because they had dealt with the Soviets in prior nuclear crisis before. I think they will be making a big mistake if they treat the threats from the CCP the same as the ones from the Soviets. The Chinese Communist Party is more dangerous than the Soviets in terms of nuclear weapons because they're more radical in their approach. This is threat number four. I want to compare the difference in the Soviet mentality versus the CCP mentality. According to Nikita Khrushchev, who is the leader during the Cold War, according to Khrushchev's son, the former Soviet leader became depressed for several days after watching a movie showing the effects of nuclear explosions. He thus developed a deep caution towards nuclear war, recognizing that it would not have any real victors. This perspective influenced future Soviet leader Gorbachev, who ended the Russian Communist Party. Gorbachev emphasized the interdependence of nations and the importance of avoiding nuclear conflict. In contrast, Mao Zedong had a much more reckless attitude towards nuclear war. At a November 1957 meeting in Moscow with leaders of other communist nations, Mao made an impromptu speech suggesting that he was indifferent to the potential loss of half of China's population in a nuclear conflict. He said, the worst is a nuclear war, and it's not a big deal. There are 2.7 billion people in the world. If half dies, there's still half left. If half of China's 600 million people die, we still have 300 million. According to the Chinese scholar who disclosed this, the room was dead silent after Mao uttered those words. This speech reportedly stunned Khrushchev. That was the beginning, or that was the event that started the troubled relations between China and the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, the Soviets still played by the rule. They followed certain protocols. The communications between the American and Soviet leaders were open. For example, the Soviets planned a nuclear attack on China. I think it was in 1969. They alerted Washington. I think Nixon was in the White House. Nixon intervened and stopped the Soviets. You see, at least they were communicating. I don't think the Americans should expect this level of openness and communication with the CCP. They will pay a price if they expect the CCP will behave the same way as the Soviets did. I don't think the would tell anyone if it attacks Taiwan. That's reason number four, the difference between former Soviet Union and the CCP, the difference in mentality. Number five, CCP's ability to run nuclear programs. Nuclear programs are not just expensive to develop. They're also costly to maintain. I read today that nuclear weapons require daily maintenance to ensure their safety. This operation can be expensive because it requires substantial resources. At the end of the Cold War and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia faced fiscal difficulties as its economy deteriorated. This situation posed substantial challenges for the Russians to maintain the nuclear weapons that were left over from the Soviet Union. In other words, Russia didn't have the money to maintain its gigantic nuclear arsenal. Therefore, Russia and the United States reached an agreement to significantly reduce their nuclear arsenals. The U.S. paid a considerable amount to Russia to help it safely destroy and dismantle the nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the U.S. also reduced its own stockpile. I worry about the safety of China's nuclear arsenal because of the lack of proper maintenance. It's the same concern I have for China's poorly maintained infrastructure and public buildings. My safety concerns for China's nuclear stockpile is that it's attributable to several reasons. I break it up into several smaller concerns. I have one big concern about the overall safety and maintenance of China's nuclear arsenal. But the concerns are one. One is they weren't 100% built according to specs due to corruption and overly aggressive production schedules. In China, when the boss said production deadlines are not decided based on actual production requirements, deadlines are delivered based on political needs. Certain leaders need to have a certain amount of weapons delivered before some big meeting dates, and therefore, he doesn't care. You just have to deliver them. So there aren't 100% built, I'm not saying they're all substandard. It's impossible they're 100% built or 100% of them are built according to specs and with proper inspection and everything. Because number one, corruption, and number two, overly aggressive production schedule. And the second concern is they're not properly maintained on a daily basis. They say they ought to be maintained on a daily basis to ensure safety. Now, my question is, are these being taken care of on a daily basis? We all know China is in a major financial crisis right now. The local governments, also the central government, don't have money. Even some military units, their people's salaries are being cut. So the lack of funding will affect these maintenance work. And also low morale in the rocket force, given the ongoing political purge. I mean, we've all heard about the political purging in the rocket force. So are people still doing their job? Or if so, are they still doing it according to standards and procedures? And then number three is the lie flat mentality, like this do nothing. Because of this sense of insecurity about their future, people may opt to do nothing. And then also the cutting corner mentality. So I just think it's very... Remember, was it last year when we saw a spy balloon that flew over? Was it Montana? Somewhere in the Midwest of the US. Remember the spy balloon just flew over and Xi Jinping wasn't aware? My sense at the time was that somehow it just got out of control. Nobody was doing their job. China was right. It was during the month when the entire country was locked down due to COVID outbreak. So nobody was doing their job. The balloon just flew away. And it flew over the US. I mean, how do we know? I mean, it's impossible to imagine that would happen to nuclear weapons. But I know how corrupt the Chinese... I said in my program last time that it's impossible for mainland Chinese to follow procedures, particularly highly precision. Anything that requires precise operation, if it's a precision instrument or precision operation, the Chinese have a hard time following it. So it worries me. I'm seeing so many collapses of bridges, tunnels, and highways, and also buildings. I just kind of worry about the nuclear arsenal in China. I'm not an expert on that, but those of you who are experts should do the investigation. And I think the West, like I said, I mean, the West shouldn't just think, well, it's their problem. I don't need to worry about it. No, I don't think so. I don't think so. So I think it's extremely dangerous when you leave such lethal weapons in the hands of a group of irresponsible individuals. I just think that's deadly. So we need to do something about it. We cannot assume the CCP, the PLA officers or the leaders are conscientiously taking care of it because they feel like they are responsible. When things go out of order to some extent, it's not that people intentionally want to do something wrong or set it off. No, I think it's just that all it takes is a tiny little mistake somewhere in the system. It's always like that. It's not the meltdown of the entire system, but when it happens, it will be just a tiny little glitch somewhere, and it could be a tremendous disaster. And the reason number six, we need to talk about China's nuclear power plants. Speaking of nuclear weapons, we must talk about nuclear power plants. Ukraine has the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and ranks third in the number of nuclear power plants in Europe. And during the Russia-Ukraine war, Russian forces attacked Ukraine's nuclear power plants. And we saw that the dangerous situation alerted the rest of the world of the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. China has been building nuclear power plants on a large scale, I should say on a massive scale. In the CCP's view, its nuclear industry is a high-tech strategic sector and a crucial pillar of national security. So currently, the international community is moving away from nuclear power. However, CCP is going against the trend and massively developing nuclear power plants. As of now, China ranks third in the world in total nuclear power installed capacity. In terms of installed capacity, China ranks the third. I think the U.S. is number one. Who's number two? I forgot. Germany? I forgot. I know U.S. is number one, China is number three. But China leads the world in the number of nuclear power plants under construction with 24 units. So why is the CCP building so many nuclear power plants? Is it part of Beijing's military-civilian fusion program? Is the construction of nuclear power plants tied to the expansion of nuclear weapons? I don't know. But people are talking about that there is a potential link. Notably, China has been actively involved in building nuclear power plants for other countries. Chinese companies such as China National Nuclear Corporation, CNNC, and China General Nuclear Power Group, CGN, have been involved in constructing and financing nuclear power plants in Pakistan, Argentina, and even in the United Kingdom. It's not building a plant from scratch. Chinese companies like CGN have invested in and are partnering on nuclear power projects in the UK, including the Hinkley Point C project. And then China has also shown interest in building or financing nuclear power projects in Romania, Kenya, and Turkey. Now, someone pointed out that the construction of a nuclear power facility is very long. Sometimes it takes decades. And once a country signs such a contract with China, and because of the long nature of nuclear power projects, that country cannot serve relations with the CCP for a while. And during this time, the CCP can effectively exert its influence over that country. So, the CCP's market grab for nuclear power projects overseas will have a significant impact on geopolitical landscape and international relations. So, that's all I have for you. I spelled out six reasons why the United States should not underestimate the nuclear threats from Beijing. All right, that's all. Let me take a sip of water from my gigantic cup. A fan asked me today, she ordered t-shirts and mug from my shop, and she only received the mug but not the t-shirts. I want to tell you, those of you who ordered shirts and mug, they don't come in one shipment because they are made by different vendors. When I ordered them, they came in two shipments. Okay. All right, cheers. Oh, you don't sit here. Where's my logo? Oh, my lipstick. Here's my logo. Here we go. Here we go. All right. Enough of lace showing off. All right. Let me see if people have questions for me. All right. I saw one or at least one super sticker. I want to thank the person. If I could find it, where is it? Where did it go? I think I saw it. Here it is. Daniel McGinnis. Excellent stream, as always. Thank you, Lei. Well, thank you, Daniel, from Canada. Thank you. All right. That seems to be all. All right. Questions. Jerry Watson. Lei. Oh, this is... Let me... I can barely read the questions because they're so low. The U.S. is testing molten salt reactions. The question just disappeared on me. Reactors that are filled with the used fuel raw stored at current nuclear plants. Okay. Well, thank you for sharing that information with me. Well, thank you. Well, here's Silas. Is the mug as big as it looks? It's humongous. It is quite big. It's 20 ounce, but it's popular. I mean, a lot of people... I mean, I offer three sizes, 11 ounce, 15 ounce, and 20 ounce, but this one sells well. Yeah. People didn't opt for the smaller sizes. I think it saves us time to go and get water, so if you fill this mug, it can last you for the whole day. It is big. No. Oh. No. I think, yeah. I think it's disproportionate because it's too... Yeah. I think this is... When I put it in front of me, that's the real size. This is better. This is the real size in relation to Lei's face. Yeah. It's not that big because if I put... It's too close to the camera. This is the real size. All right. Lei is taking a swim in the mug afterwards. All right. This is... That's from Mitsu. I love that. All right. Okay. That seems to be all. No questions for me. Okay. Alan Mandel. Hi, Lei. Biden has said he traveled 17,000 miles with Premier Xi and had numerous meetings. What could they have discussed? Matters are worse. Well, first of all, Xi Jinping is not a premier. He had never been a premier, so that's... I don't know why he called him a premier. Second of all, they could not have traveled 17,000 miles together. I don't know. Maybe it's his bad memory. I mean, 17,000 miles, you would travel around the world, right? Or at least back and forth. Yeah. Between China and the US, back and forth, around trip. I don't know. I don't know what he was saying. Do you know when he said this? Maybe it's his bad memory. The man is getting old. All right. Ed C., do you think Tim Watt's work in China will help the Harris administration work better with Xi? I don't know. See, this is my view. Sometimes I think people who has never been to China probably is in a better position to deal with China. Because my biggest trouble when I work with Westerners, those who have a little bit of experience with China, who speak a little bit of language, who have visited China, are the most difficult to learn. Because they think they're China experts, because they've been there, or they've lived there, they've worked there. And then they think they know, but they don't. I mean, the same analogy would be Wang Huning, Xi Jinping's political makeup artist. The guy lived in the US for six months as a visiting scholar. Upon return, he wrote a book, America Against America. He has been the expert on America. But do you really think the guy knows America? I don't think so. But he's been giving advices to Xi Jinping. So it's the same problem. People who have limited experience and knowledge about another country brag about their experience in another country. Sometimes it's counterproductive. I mean, I would make the same mistake. I'm not against Tim Walz. I'm not against him. I'm just saying it's the same for a lot of them. If I lived in the US for six months, going back to China, I would label myself as an expert 30 years ago, when most people have not been to the United States. Of course, I knew more than they do. But do I really know the United States? Probably not. That would be the mistake. And this is my firsthand experience. Even when we do translation, we have Westerners, Americans who study Chinese language. Their English is superb because it's their native language. And when they translate Chinese into English, they assume things. We try to tell them that's not what it means in Chinese. But they assume things. And it's very hard to persuade them. Is there a word for that? Maybe there's a word to describe that problem. I think there's an English word for every type of problem. So that's my long answer to that. Politicians should hire people who actually know China, who are truly experts. That's my view. I've lived here for a long time. I still don't think I know all about America. What about Russia? Do they have a concern that China doesn't share info with them? Of course they do. I don't think the Russians trust the Chinese. I don't think the North Koreans trust the Chinese. I don't think anyone trusts. I shouldn't say the Chinese, the CCP. I don't think anyone trusts the CCP. So no, the answer is no. Let me see. Tim Walz said he believed the US could cooperate with China. Very naive to me. China has constantly not acted in good faith and broken cooperative agreements. China has not kept any promises. So how can you cooperate with someone who hasn't kept promises? Unless you have certain ways to force China to keep its promise. If our politician has the ability to show us how they can make Xi Jinping keep his promise, put the pressure on the we need to see before we can talk about cooperating with Beijing. Jeff Watson, what are your thoughts about Haring Kissinger as authority on China? Well, he represents one school of thought. At the time, he was a pioneer, was a vanguard. But the problem is, China changed from the time he went to China to the time he died. The regime has changed hands a couple of times and has changed, but his view did not change. And that's the problem. And I think that's the problem with a lot of well-educated people today. See, the world politics today isn't that difficult to solve. The problem is all here. Because accomplished individuals, well-educated individuals, or shall we say elites, we refuse to admit that other people's ideas are better. We refuse to say that our knowledge and skills are outdated. Because we were once so right, so correct, so successful. And we refuse to acknowledge people who are uneducated, inexperienced, loud and rude, can actually be more popular than us. I think that's the problem in today's politics in the United States. I think people have too much pride in themselves. But that's a weakness. That's a sign of weakness. Two really strong people are the ones who can recognize his or her weakness. We all have weaknesses. We all need to learn. My grandmother, who was an English teacher, kept learning French and German till the last few years of her life. She lived to the age of, I don't know, 98, 99. She kept learning all her life. She was already fluent in English, and she studied French and German simultaneously. When I was little, I saw her trying to differentiate the two languages because she was learning both. Even when we came to the US, I still remember her trying to grasp her foreign language skills. It was amazing to me. I don't know what question I was answering. Oh yeah, I was talking about Henry Kissinger. I think that's the problem with many of the American elites today. It's time that they look at America, the United States, from a different perspective. It's time to update their perspective. It's time to embrace different views and other people's views, but a lot of them refuse because they think they're right. I think that's really a problem in today's world. Actually, their view would set them up to fail. I made a video about water, why water is so powerful, because it can adapt to any situation. Water is selfless, colorless, shapeless. You put it in a cup, it's a cup of water. It takes the shape of the cup. If you put it in a river, it takes the shape of a river. It always flows downward. It never goes upward. It goes down. It goes to places where people don't want to go, but water is the most powerful element in our world. Why? When we stubbornly hold on to the belief that we are right, you are wrong, we actually make a fool of ourselves. Seriously. All right, enough of this real talk. I already answered that question. Jeff Ramos, does China have NATO equivalent of mutual defense? No. The only one country that China has officially claimed as an ally with China that has a mutual defense agreement is North Korea. The fact that North Korea has a nuclear weapon and it has this treaty with China is concerning. China can sign up for this not-first-use-whatever policy. China could claim, I'm not the first one to use that, but North Korea can do that on China's behalf. Frank K. Canada, people should watch the movie Oppenheimer. It's a masterpiece and makes people realize how a nuclear bomb can create chaos. Yeah, I tried to watch that movie on an airplane once. I fell asleep. I fell asleep, but thank you. I think it's a good movie. All right, that's all. Hit the like button from Jonathan Doe. Well, thank you. Trevor Chapman, Lei, can you have PayPal for your shop easier for overseas buyers, Trevor? It does ship globally. My products do ship globally. I will have to ask the technical person, the person who helped me set up the shop. I will see if we could set up PayPal. Good suggestion. Thank you, Trevor. All right. Selah, English is my first language and I use dictionaries weekly. Okay. All right. Good. And someone says, I fell asleep too. All right. Also, I'm not the first person who fell asleep in that movie because I know it won awards. I really wanted to watch it, but I kind of fell asleep. All right. That's all for today. Thank you for joining me. I think I should do more Thursday night live streams. All right. All right. I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm always right. Jonathan Doe. Okay. Are you sure you're always right? Is there anyone who could claim that he or she is always right? That's quite a statement to make. I don't know if that's what you mean. But anyways, stay well. I will see you in a few days. Bye-bye.