Your comment(s) here and the original question emphasized (in bold in the Q)
by doing a false flag attack on its own ship (Gulf of Tonkin incident)
And then you say
It's not a reason to downvote the question.
People disagreeing with the factual premises of the Q is a common reason for DVs, in my experience.
Maybe that's how the Chinese press describes the incident nowadays (i.e. US attacking itself), but that's hardly how this is viewed by almost everyone else.
It involved both a proven confrontation on August 2, 1964, carried out by North Vietnamese forces in response to covert operations in the coastal region of the gulf, and a second, claimed confrontation on August 4, 1964, between ships of North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. Originally American claims blamed North Vietnam for both attacks. Later investigation revealed that the second attack never happened; the American claim that it had was based mostly on erroneously interpreted communications intercepts.
And much later in the article:
In 1995, retired Vietnamese Defense Minister, Võ Nguyên Giáp, meeting with former Secretary McNamara, denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers on August 4, while admitting to the attack on August 2.
Wiki def of false flag (also note the term doesn't appear in the former article):
an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party
The US may have embellished the extent of the NV boat attacks, but that's not quite the same as outright invention, which is why you'd get people to disagree with your "false flag" characterization.
Regarding your comparison with other posts, yeah, you're undoubtedly going to attract DVs more quickly here by bashing the US than by bashing the PRC, but that's due to some obvious factors like the language of the site, the Great Firewall etc. (I don't know if politics.SE is accessible or not in the PRC by the way.) As I'm writing this, there are 6,500 questions and 79 watchers on the US tag. For the China tag, the stats are 416 questions and 27 watchers.
And regarding the RAND report
Did you read the report? It says a war is possible, and won't necessarily involve nuclear weapons, and the U.S. would most likely benefit from it
I don't see where it says the latter. I think you may be misinterpreting the predictions that Chinese losses would exceed the US ones as a "benefit".
Note that in contrast to the US plausibly wanting to give themselves a reason to strike North Vietnam as to reduce the insurgency support for the South, there's nothing comparable here in re China until it actually launches some similar operation, e.g. somehow manages to stir up an insurgency in Taiwan or elsewhere in the Pacific, or outright invades something.
It's true that the report says that in the future the ratio of Chinese:US losses in a war is likely to be less imbalanced... but you'd have to apply Putin's logic to conclude that the US should therefore go to war with China sooner rather than later. (And unlike Russia conquering parts of Ukraine, it's not clear to me what parts of China the US wants to conquer, so the incentives are much less, even if we apply Putin's logic in re inevitable wars. Just exchanging some [mostly naval] blows as the US did with Iran a few times isn't changing much.)
Had you not deleted the Q after two downvotes, you might have gotten such a "frame challenge" answer.