U.S. used 'virtually all' of its long-range precision missiles during Iran war

I doubt that - Iran is very large and would require something like conscription in the US to get anywhere near the required amount of troops. The US doesn't have a great track record with conquering and occupying other countries.

This is a laughable amount of ignorance. The capability that Iran has to prevent this is physics

Iran is gigantic. Iran has 90 million people.

If you put together every long range precision munition the US has ever built, you could attack a single City and severely damage it.

People have zero sense of scale. To level cities the way we did in WW2 requires the level of industrial output that we had in WW2, because we have literally not made enough explosives to do so since

The US dropped 1.4 million tons of bombs on Germany alone in WW2

That's the equivalent of 3 million Tomahawk missiles. The US has built less than 10k total

1. All but about 10 countries in the world recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. This always seems to get in people's feelings when I point this out but I'm sorry, the One China policy is the official policy of the US and virtually every country on Earth [1];

2. US military policy is that the US is the only country allowed to be a global superpower (aka "hegemon"). Taiwan is a key link in containment, known as the island-chain strategy [2]. If Taiwan falls into China's sphere of influence then that strategy falls apart. And that's really why this Cold War 2.0 narrative has been manufactured;

3. The level of hypocrisy here is insane. Every allegation is a confession. For one thing, China has shown no imperial ambitions. This gets the inevitable "But Tibet!" rejoinder. It was 1950. Let it go. Also, 90% of the people in Tibet prior to annexation were slaves. They have euphemistically been called "serfs" in Western coverage (when it's mentioned at all) but these "serfs" could be traded like property. You know, like slaves. Also, Tibet and the Dalai Lama is a CIA project [3]; If you find yourself on the same side as the CIA, it's probably time to be asking some questions;

4. In the event of a direct military conflict with China, what are the goals? What is the theory of victory between two nuclear powers? The US has been militarily defeated by Iran. Do you think they'd fare better against China? Really? For one thing, China has a virtual monopoly of rare earths, which are essential for all these missile systems and radars we've depleted; and

5. There's no credible fear of a military invasion of Taiwan. Or even a blockade. China's position is simply to leave the question unanswered, which is typically called strategic ambiguity in policy circles. That's the US position as well, officially. China believes the question will resolve all on its own at some point. That may take decades. There's no reason to do anything, particularly when most of the world already recognizes Taiwan as Chinese territory.

Also, China simply does not have the military to invade Taiwan over 100 miles of open ocean. This would likely require half a million to more than a million troops. The amphibious capability simply doesn't exist. Nor does maintaining the supply lines to maintain that. This is also the issue with any invasion of Iran, btw. It's impossible.

So why are we spending so much time drumming up fear of something that doesn't benefit China at all and is impossible to carry out? That question should lead you to the true motive: American imperial interests and the continued sale of arms.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program

The entire 25+ year GWOT era has resulted in 7k American military personnel dying.

Vietnam that number was closer to 60K in 8 years, when US population was also 33% lower.

Dramatically different impact on society.

Sending marines to take an island in Hormuz or a carrier under fire in the South China Sea might look a lot closer to Vietnam than GWOT in a hurry.