This article is a load of nonsense. Let me make a couple points:
1) The US would likely possess total air and naval superiority in any conflict with China. While China has upgraded its both sub fleet and anti ship missiles, it would be greatly outclassed in going head to head with the US. This will likely not change meaningfully for at least 20 years.
2) The US would not likely fight China in large scale land battles. The likeliest possibility would be a battle for Taiwan. Crossing a body of water is a very difficult thing to do (stopping power of water) and when you are facing a modern military (Taiwain) backed by the only superpower in the world's naval and air forces it becomes even more difficult.
3) Comparing Iraq to even an unlikely large scale land war with the US is silly. First, Iraq needs to be viewed in two stages - a classic war and a counter-insurgency. The US military easily defeated the Iraqi regular forces. In the insurgency, the US military has defeated any enemy coming at them with the exception of IEDs. Clearly, the counter-insurgency phase does not compare with anything involving China. In a land battle against Chinese regular forces, US power would used in its optimum manner. Chinese armor would be cut to pieces, precision target munitions and other conventional weapons (AC-130, Daisy cutters etc) would handle wave attacks much better than in Korea. With satellite communications, the US can destroy anything that clumps. Massed infantry would likely be no exception. Also, unless fighting on the Asian mainland, China would not be able to transport sufficient quantities of men and munitions to fight the US.
4) The silly article in question also presupposes China would change its grand strategy and undertake a highly risky action against the US. China, short of starting a major war with the US, is assured of defense. The Chinese have proven willing to let their economy grow and use positive and negative inducements to sway states in the region and around the globe.
5) The article also suggests China would be willing to use nuclear weapons against the United States early in any conflict. The history of the nuclear era suggests this is really unlikely. If they did act in this way, it would not be rational in the limited sense this word is used in international relations. China's small(er) arsenal could hurt the US badly, but the US could literally push China back to the stoneage. Our missiles could saturate every city in China within 18 minutes of any Chinese launch. China's economic development is concentrated in a handful of cities - what happens with those gone?
The person who wrote this article and those quoted do not know their asses from their elbows on this issue. It is not worth worrying about.
(somehow I left this concluding paragraph of my earlier post)
"2) The US would not likely fight China in large scale land battles. The likeliest possibility would be a battle for Taiwan. Crossing a body of water is a very difficult thing to do (stopping power of water) and when you are facing a modern military (Taiwain) backed by the only superpower in the world's naval and air forces it becomes even more difficult."
Agreed. The Chinese themselves (with agreement by many US analysts) assume that to successfully conquer Tawain they would have to succeed in 10-12 days. During that window, they would have a chance due to the time it takes to move in US assets. After that, the Chinese would have no chance.
Of course, the ChiComs would immediately bomb Jimmuh's canal, making our supply route that much more difficult!