They have Olympics for that sort of thing - proves nothing.

I think what the guy is saying is that the Chinese can beat the US at it's own game. Ever since Grant beat the South by attrition, losing 3 people for every one of the South, the US has played if fast and loose with it's soldiers lives.

Patton was a splendid example. Cared nothing for the soldier, had an unlimited manpower pool, and spent 'em recklessly.

Montgomery, on the other hand, had a limited supply of people and played it safe and cautious. He could see the inevitable happening, and didn't want to waste lives making it happen days sooner.

I believe he's saying that the Chinese can waste more lives and are more willing to than the US. And that the organizational strength of the Army and Navy isn't such that it could efficiently mount and support a war against a determined enemy.

As far as nuclear war goes, let's say the US kills 400 million Chinese, and they kill 200 million Americans. What's left. Not only that, but the Chinese can subsist on far less than Americans. What would happen to the average American if the highway system were taken out, and railways, and major airports. Add the electrical grid, which is very vulnerable in an all-out war.

The Chinese would do better than we.

But let's say yer thesis is correct and it would take 3 Chinese to take out one US soldier. Who can do that longer?

I served with a sergeant who was on the Yalu when the Chinese came across. He said you shot 'em until you ran out of bullets, and they kept coming. They forced a very fast retreat with numerical superiority alone.