>If they pull the trigger, America will have the moral upper hand and we clearly have the military superiority. It will probably be a completely stupid and pointless war, and it will wipe out huge number of innocent lives. Pelosi herself will probably escape unharmed.

This point really cuts to the heart of the matter. Moral and rights talk, in a manner that treats them as unconditionally overriding principles, is the exclusive domain of the privileged. It takes an uncommon privilege to eschew any consideration of the externalities of your actions; to treat the justificatory quality of rights as total. Those who aren't so privileged know, just as the right-of-way in an intersection won't protect you from an oncoming car, a moral or legal right won't protect you from the negatives of uncritically exercising your presumed rights. But social media has created a potent source of short-term utility from virtue signaling with no consideration of context, the costs of which usually falls on those less privileged than the virtue signaler.

It's like we've collectively forgotten that the world isn't black and white, and that actions have reactions. We just can't avoid considering our actions in a space of possible reactions and then judge the utility of the outcome. That is, if we actually care about helping people and reducing suffering. But those who go around advocating for promoting democracy, or standing up to bullies, or whatever are doing exactly this, dispensing with the complicated task of analyzing the outcome of actions and judging if the presumed benefit is worth the cost. When Pelosi goes to Taiwan to poke China, she can afford to ignore the potential reaction. As you said, she is likely to survive a nuclear war. But there is no virtue here, only self promotion. The real virtue is restraining oneself in these uncritical "moral" performances precisely because the cost tends to be borne by those less privileged. It is easy to say democracy is worth dying for when you're not the one that will be dying.

>It seems like you have lost faith in American soft and hard power, and you think China will not only start a hot war, that they might win it? Is that fair?

I don't know what would count as a "win" in a hot war with China. It's negative-sum. The win is not to engage in it.

>Calling her actions treasonous when Biden himself agrees personally seems like a stretch. It’s clearly a coordinated motion by the Democrats, not only to win votes at home but also abroad. Russian and Chinese intervention seems much worse than American when we consider her gesture.

I don't know that Biden agrees with her. Even if he personally agrees with her, the issue is how her actions undermine US policy that President Biden is executing. But perhaps this is some surreptitious tactic to confound China's ability to predict US responses. In that case, I wouldn't have a problem with Pelosi's action (although I do have a problem with the tactic). But that's not how it looks from where I'm sitting and I can only judge by the information I have.

>The separation of powers encourages dissent against policy or actions by other coequal branches of government. On what grounds do you think she is flouting a responsibility? Which specific responsibilities is she flouting?

The separation of powers isn't akin to a no-holds-barred cage match where the last person standing wins. There are legal structures in place for each branch to influence or constrain the other branches. Operating outside of these constraints to influence US policy is just to declare yourself an enemy of the constitution. Iran-Contra was treasonous precisely because the executive did an end-run around the legal authority of Congress. This is no different.