No, but we should definitely subsidise defensive weapons sales to Taiwan and our other democratic allies in the region.
Deterrence doesn’t work if done in secret. If China intervened in Hong Kong militarily, Taiwan and our allies need to be able to credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation.
And how does one "credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation" without nuclear weapons? Honest question.
Vietnam involved American ground troops. Upgrading a country’s standing army is different.
(Tactical note. China has a huge army. It’s navy is humbler. Troop transport capacities are manageable with the right guns and logistical lines. Add to that the international waters separating Taiwan and China, and an invasion can be rendered untenable.)
that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam> how does one "credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation" without nuclear weapons?
Non-nuclear ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles. Mines. Stealth bombers.
>Troop transport capacities are manageable with the right guns and logistical lines.
I actually laughed. I guess we didn't have the "right guns" in Afghanistan.
>Add to that the international waters separating Taiwan and China, and an invasion can be rendered untenable.
And what happens when they call our bluff? We sink a transport ship? WWIII, that's what happens.
EDIT: damn it, Irak (french) is spelled with a q in English.
Is there even a million of mercenaries available around the entire world ?
How would you make them even work together ?
A million people is huge.
Equality means they can be fed to the meatgrinder too.
Certainly both would lose many lives. Why would any American want to die for this crisis? Why would you imagine China would give up or be unable to defend territory so near their mainland?
In a defensive war, probably China. They've got more tanks, more people, more manufacturing capabilities, lots of artillery and no doubt they've spent years preparing themselves militarily for such an event.