My bet would be that invasion wouldn't look like quick war, but slow control of political power either through light force like economic blackmail, or through something similar to what US did with Venezuela.

Now that US has already opened the gate to labelling nation head as drug seller, this just eases things for China.

▲

conception an hour ago | parent [-]

Also the US has very publicly shown they don’t have the ability to effectively wage war over any period of time.

▲

sailfast 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yes and no. The Iran war is deeply unpopular and won’t even pass congressional approval for money. It’s being fought from pocket change budgets because they know they can’t pass a funding bill for it. Also not the same kind of war.

Any period time? US waged war for 20+ years in Afghanistan. Pretty effectively! To what end? Not an end an army can really achieve so… there you are.

But a war that might actually be popular? To save the world from communist dictators and make sure we have chips for our precious devices? I wouldn’t count out the United States. Or nuclear weapons, which still exist and are a thing.

▲

wongarsu 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

And it'd be the kind of war the US is best at. Boots on the ground, against conventional military, with a civilian population that is on the side of the US forces

No guerilla warfare, no insurgents, no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles

	▲	fc417fc802 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles Was with you until that last one. If you haven't noticed missiles, drones, and interceptors have played a central role in ukraine.