Finally, assessing the potential U. S.-China relationship in these three games provides some first-order conclusions. Ultimately, the game framework points to the need for the United States to hedge—to show caution when mak­ing decisions about what course to take because multiple outcomes are possi­ble and are difficult to predict. As a result, no course of action should be seen as immutable, and the United States should consider multiple paths. Further­more, this framework leads to the conclusion that it is quite likely that neither side understands what game the other party may be playing, a misunderstand­ing that could result in unnecessarily strong reactions from both powers to fairly minor military moves—including PLAAF modernization

Because this framework seeks to assess the military balances, the games are best understood through the different roles military power plays in each. The Game of Influence is one where military power is utilized in an essential sup­porting role to advance national interests, but military victory in a conflict is not the ultimate goal. The Game of Influence is not necessarily a zero-sum game. In the Battle over a Third Party, military power in the context of a conflict over a third party plays the central role, but asymmetric stakes tend to prevent a zero – sum character. In the Great Power Game, military power is the central aspect, and it is the most comprehensive game in scope as it ranges across all military and political spheres. It is also the only true zero-sum game discussed.