Been away for a while, but I have decided to take some time out of my routine to make a post.
My social science teacher is communist, he himself publicly stated this. He wishes that Mexico became a communist country, and started going on and on about how communism is superior to capitalism etc. Our own book says communism is better than capitalism. I don´t feel comfortable in his class anymore.
The most shocking of all of his absurdities was a statement that he said China is stronger and superior to the U.S.
According to him, the U.S. would undoubtedly lose a war with China. I was just about to contradict him, when I stopped and thought about it for a minute. This guy will NEVER believe me, unless I have complete undeniable evidence.
The real problem is, when ever some one tries to refute their statements, he calls their sources false, biast, far fetched, etc. He always is playing those type of cards.
Another absurd statement he made was that there was no hunger or corruption in a communist government.
Some one then mentioned Cuba, he then said that Cuba was poor and hungry because "the god damn yankees want to kill them." Then he went on and on about the U.S. Imperialism, and that soon there would be a War that would crush the U.S. and Mexico would get back California and Texas and the Americans would be slaves of Mexico (he is a disgusting human being, who also thinks that religions should be destroyed or disbanded, people should die to repay debts of blood from the past).


Ugh, people, lets just star with U.S. v.s. China.

1ST Does China have the ability to INVADE the U.S.?
2ND Does China have the infrastructure to sustain their people when the U.S. would cut off the food it sells to China?
3RD Do they have the military ability to repel the U.S. air force? What about bombardment?
4TH Will the majority of able bodied men fight for China?
5TH How well trained is Chinas army? How well armed is it?
6TH What about their navy?
7TH Would a constant 8-12 month constant bombardment of Chinas infrastructure, coupled with an inspired well thought out strategy, force the eventual surrender of their forces and the possible overthrow of their failing government?

Please answer these questions, also if you think more questions on the matter should be asked, please make them. I want to hear as much on the subject as possible, I really want to make this guy look like an idiot.

Oh God, you're still here.

I actually think China would win a war against the US...so I'm no help here.
As for American's being slaves to Mexico...I think Mexico and the US would be slaves to China. >_>

He's a Mexican communist public school teacher. Why are you taking him seriously?

China has the largest land army on earth and would destroy any nation in a ground war, even if they can't even mobilize half their army. Fortunately, we have the Pacific Ocean between them and us. There is no way in hell that they could get even a competitive amount of their military across the Pacific ocean.

The whole idea of a war is ludicrous anyways. We are both nuclear powers now, so any out right war would almost certainly result in MAD. We would come out a whole lot better of course, given our vast superiority in nuclear armaments but the after math would still be catastrophic.

China wouldn't want to go to war with us anyway. Our mass consumerism is a huge part of the reason that they are doing so well. China will probably continue to evolve into a sort of capitalist dictatorship. As good a china is doing right now it has a long way to go before it's close to being as wealthy or educated as the US, and it's climb is fairly dependent on our mutual prosperity. Right now, it's just a huge source of cheap labor, but that will really start to change over the next fifty years.

India is a good country to keep an eye on as well, they are really starting to be real competitors in the technological world, so if they can get their act together, China might have some competition.

It is a good post. Leave him alone.

To be fair Communism is a better idea as an ideal, however people are that corupt it can never work.

Pretty much.

But how well armed and trained is it?
How much do their ground forces depend on their infrastructure?
If such infrastructure was destroyed or significantly weakened, would this not directly and proportionally weaken their own army?
What about their lack of air superiority?
Would this significantly change the odds in favor of the U.S.?

Mexico taking over Texas? Sounds like she's obsessed with the Zimmerman Note. (Although I think the note was written by the British to get us into WWI, IMHO).

Wait...you want us to give you a strategic breakdown of U.S. and Chinese military capabilities to tell your public education teacher knowing full well he won't listen to you? I think I'll pass.

China would **** us up.

I think we may be able to win a long term insurgency (read:Do to them what we are getting done to us in certain theaters) but it would be far fetched and we would come out of it a third world country if we were lucky.

Also, my tailor is communist and you are a moron.

Its a he, not a she. It was a she, I would be TERRIFIED of her.

How does this post make me a moron? Brian leaves and now all hell is loose...

I know for a fact they can goose step pretty good

safe to assume they're not too badly trained

If it's worthless then why does it matter if it fails or not?

Also, what the hell are you talking about?

I've never understood the people that think that China would win a war against the US. Baring nuclear arms, which of course means both sides lose, China has no capability to wage a war against the US. Their ability to project power throughout the world is basically nonexistent. Their navy absolutely sucks and would take about a day for our navy to wipe them out. So how exactly is China going to beat us?

Your teacher is right about one thing, religions should be disbanded. Though not forcefully, it should just sort of happen over a period of time.

THROUGH NUMBARZ! Like numbers is everything to war. A hungry and angry army will fight desperately, unlike a patriotic, well fed and tooken care of army, plus the latter has greater training and weaponry, naval and air superiority. Factor these into the war.



If people wish to congregate and live by their own belief system just as long as it does not affect a third party or breaks a law, then you have NO RIGHT to stop them. People are entitled to have a religion or none at all (even though this is a religion in itself), by what right can some one tell another, you should be disbanded and should not believe this because I think it wrong/false. If you convince them, well thats not my problem, but don´t try to turn half the world against religion.
My real problem with a lot of religions is that they play politics at times, this is where problems begin, and where we get wars. Religions are not the problem, its when religion is used in politics, as excuses. I will point the finger at no one and mention no examples, I leave this up to every ones own mind.

Same way they beat us last time?

they repelled a raid. they didnt beat us.

China would smoke the US. For one they have jackie chan. Not to mention they have a population of over a billion.

Yes but they learned that we can, in fact, kick their *** conventional angagements (barring stupid politcal restrictions that were in place at the time).

But if China has learned anything from their own dealings with us, and our dealings with our current "war" they will not try to fight a conventional war. That would be really stupid.

True, the sheer force of our navy and air force could destroy their entire force structure. But if they find a way to neutralize the power of our navy and air force we are ****ed because although we have the most advanced and well trained ground forces in the world we don't have a lot of them, and they do.

size means nothing. alexander defeated persia with an army 1/10 the size. and jackie chan is no match for chuck norris.

They could never pull it off. They got nothing to fight our air and navy. Unless you think they will randomly detonate nukes in the water and in the air to try to get as many aircraft and naval vessels as possible, although thats a waste of nukes.Their army would surrender due to hunger, just starve them until they get the message: "Were not stupid, were going to let you rot. You´d better surrender or we will mow you down."

Eliminate food, you eliminate the army. Regarding nukes, I am sure the U.S. has a plan or strategy to take them out on a moments notice.

Haha.

Size means a lot. There are other factors that can work to your advantage, but if you put 1,000,000 troops against 30,000 troops with neither having any significant advantage over the other (other than the obvious size difference) the larger army will win. Don't even try to say otherwise.

EDIT:Are you serious? A hungry army surrendering? You know that troops don't decide on a formal surrender, right? The Russians did well in world war two with little food and few weapons. Consider also that fanatical troops will fight the death, whether hunger or bullet. I guess it depends on the devotion of their army.

You're sure the US has a plan for nukes. The plan is hope they don't launch so we don't have to launch as well.

Samo Hung could beat him.

I happen to recall the Russians shot and killed deserters and were losing terribly. If it weren´t for the Allies Russia would have fallen.

China´s army would fight for a few years, but as conditions deteriorate and their enemy (U.S.) offers them an escape... and all this without having to equal their force in numbers.

China could very easily take the US if they were to strike first.

In a land war.

We could still carpet bomb them into next week.

Obi's right about how a nuclear war would end, in MAD.

In a purely ground war, China would most likely win. However given our incredibly air superiority, a full conventional war (i.e. everything but WMDs) would be pretty hard for China to win.

We would bomb any mass of army before it even reached our own army. Thats why the would lose. Air superiority.

Then your memory has more holes in it than an Alzheimer patient's. Any idea of "Russia Falling" is complete BS and some Nazi pipe dream. They got nothing from the rest of the Allies till about '43 or well after the point that Nazi Germany was pretty much screwed. Soviet manufacturing was completely untouchable. The most the Allies actually did, Lend Lease aside, for the Soviets were destroying a few extra armored divisions that would have been crushed under the sheer numerical superiority of the Red Army anyway. To be frank, the only purpose that invading Europe even had in '44 was keeping the whole of Europe from having a Soviet flag over it.

The closest the Soviet Union may have come to "falling"(Read: Possible setback.) was just before the blizzards kicked in during the '41 winter and by then Stalin could leave Moscow at a moments notice if necessary and the forces present were literally hours away from being reinforced by the elite Siberian winter divisions that came all the way from the Pacific coast where they had been waiting for Japan to commit seppuku by stepping on Soviet soil...again.

China VS US is fail no matter who invades who.

I think you need to get a calculator out and add up the Russian casualities and the German casualties.

The Russians had to sacrifice 26 million people (8 700 000 soldiers) in order to keep on ticking against a 4 million man army. Thats not exactly a glorious victory.

Stalin killed 20 of those 26 million just cause he was an ***.

Were those 20 million trying to desert or run? Then we can most likely see a similar scenario in a war with China, Chinese running from the war and in search of a better life.

They were killed because stalin was trying to create fear to control Russia.

You shouldn't count civilian losses with soldiers. SS Killing Squads slaughtering the defenseless doesn't really count you know.

To the OP: you seem quite close minded and intolerant of Communism as a political ideology. Communism =/= authoritarnism. Everyone thinks that if you are a Marxist then you loved the USSR or China but that claim is just false.

That coupled with the fact that most people have complete misconceptions about communism and simply don't understand it (this is evident in the average criticism anti-communist catch phrases)

So again, being a communist doesn't mean that you must support socialist governments that are led by Communist Parties (by the way "Communist State" is a contradiction)

Anyway, As for a military conflict between the US and China. It would be quite a long major war, but the US certainly has a superior military. Eventually China will supersede the US in economics and military at this rate, but if there were a conflict tomorrow, the US would likely win.

So as for the argument for Communism, it's usually quite annoying to discuss it with people who don't understand it, because most replies are simple cliche phrases with no actual criticism behind them. (But if anyone would like to discuss it, perhaps we could in another thread)

Communism makes lots of sense, it's just very unstable and difficult to maintain without slipping into authoritarianism.

Exactly, Leaders always get greedy or just don't ever want to change and adapt.