> US should send troops, build a base, and annex Hong Kong

No, but we should definitely subsidise defensive weapons sales to Taiwan and our other democratic allies in the region.

Yes, because this activity is totally invisible to China and they will not ever notice F-35s, AH-64s, and American-made Air Defense weapons just magically showing up around their borders.

> this activity is totally invisible to China

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.

Why? I don't mean to come of as hash, but that is eerily similar to how we ended up in Vietnam. What happens when Taiwan (or whoever you think these other allies are ... Japan and South Korea, presumably) gets run over by a numerically superior - by an order of magnitude - Chinese Army?

And how does one "credibly threaten the mainland with retaliation" without nuclear weapons? Honest question.

> 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.

This is a 20th century view of warfare that is supremely outdated.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.

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.

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?

I imagine you won't be signing up to fight in this war you envision others fighting? Maybe you should be sent, or perhaps your son?

Why not send your daughter? It's 2019 after all.

Equality means they can be fed to the meatgrinder too.

I know this is sarcastic, but it’s a telling marker of how unserious the US has gotten in terms of preparing for a full scale war that we’re even entertaining that idea.

With the sort of salaries US pays troops you could easily have a million mercs lined up from all sorts of different countries by Thursday next week.

Where would the million mercs come from ?

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.

To do what exactly?

Liberate Hong Kong.

I recommend you study the human history of politics and warfare, to fully understand why your comment is supremely naive.

How would sending ground troops into Hong Kong, or China accomplish anything but getting a lot of people killed?

You mean like the US liberated Iraq ?

EDIT: damn it, Irak (french) is spelled with a q in English.

Innocent question why spell Iraq with a k I've never seen that before and wondering if it has special meaning outside of just a way to spell it

It's spelled that way in a lot of European languages.

I expect the PRC would treat that similarly as the US attempting to annex Shanghai, or any other major city in China.

Let them, let's see what they will do. I wonder who would win such a conventional war. Though I guess afterwards there would be no Hong Kong left protecting.

What does winning look like?

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?

> I wonder who would win such a conventional war.

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.

Who says it stays conventional?

Setting up the pre-conditions for World War III sounds like a fantastic idea.

China has enough nukes for this to be a moot point. The outcome would be the same as if China decided to annex Hawaii -- an all out war with nuclear and other WMD.

WW III - the missing CC mitigation plan in project drawdown.

Why not Russia? They’re closer and they love annexing stuff.