[JumpCrisscross]

> that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam

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.

[remarkEon]

This is a 20th century view of warfare that is supremely outdated. One thing to keep in mind is that there's been a radical change in the technology of warfare over the last ~15 years or so, and counting battleships and battalions isn't sufficient for gauging what "works" anymore.

>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.

[pas]

Don't bluff then. Set up a line (perimeter), and anything that crosses it gets shot at. As usual. Border skirmishes are quite common, yet WW3 doesn't happen.

[hustxdy2019]

where would this line be? taiwan is only 300km away from coast line of china. are you sure about deploying fleet within the range of middle-range missile?