The issue is at some point things would have come to a head regardless when it comes to SC Sea or Taiwan.
What were the alternatives China cedes Taiwanese independence which in turn fuels Uighurs, Tibetans, dissidents and anyone else with a beef (it's the same reason Spain won't allow Catalonia to be independence).
No doubt the US (as well as Islamist countries) would covertly sponsor these groups especially if the US wished to neutralise China's economic growth (which it naturally must do in order to stay top dog).
It's not just the end of Communist China, it's the end of modern China. They're back to the century of humiliation.
A power that loses its hunger and gives concessions will collapse look at any empire in human history. Power is a zero sum game.
The article talks about:
"focused its spending on areas of comparative advantage, such as conventional capabilities designed to give China an edge along its maritime periphery."
Yet even these developments have been criticised for years by China hawks. Indeed China building a ton of littoral corvettes and other coastal vessels is seen as military arms race despite these vessels having very little or no ability to project power and are generally defensive.
Even when China started upgrading its 1960s vintage fighter fleet (based primarily on 1950s technology MiG-17 and MiG-19 and very early MiG-21F-13) with Russian Su-27s in 1990s, it was met with a lot of howls about militarism.
You hear the same with Russia. If Russia replaces old aircraft or other equipment in the western or even Pacific forces, it's viewed with hostility. This was even the case before Putin became a bogey man.
Every new vessel is derided as militarism even when it's merely replacing some clapped out Soviet clunkers and even given usually these ships aren't as capable as what they're replacing (Buyan, Steregushchiy and Gremyashchiy class corvettes and light frigates aren't even close to older Udaloy and Sovremenny class destroyers in terms of combat capability).
So the expectation from US about China's defence is the same as it is for Russia's defence ie China's/Russia's defence must be based around appeasing the US and its requirements.
US does this with its allies too if the US thinks you can't have advanced fighters it will do everything it can to stop you acquiring those.
It used to be a boon for the French who sold weapons to allied regimes the US would only sell junk too. Eg If you want a higher spec fighter than an F-5E Tiger II (or even worse A-37B Dragonfly), you'd buy French Mirage III/V/F1s.
Morocco for example struggled to even obtain F-5Es in early/mid 1970s despite being in an active war against Soviet sponsored Polisario Front who were shooting down older Moroccan F-5A Freedom Fighters with Soviet MANPADS. It wasn't until the French started selling Mirage F1s to Morocco that US relented and sold Morocco F-5Es.
----
Ramping up nuclear deterrence makes sense regardless of whether China wants to be peaceful or a wolf warrior.
You can't be a superpower without the ability to ensure MAD.
As it stands now the US could easily take out China's puny nuclear deterrent and level all of China with relatively few casualties.
From the down under point of view, China has gone from being a good neighbor to a schoolyard bully.
Down under deliberately ignored Chinese developments because our political class was in China's pockets. It wasn't until Professor Clive Hamilton released his book, Silent Invasion in 2018, that you saw the Australian political elites shift their message.
The Chinese were highly offended at their proto-tribute state starting to think for themselves and made us their new whipping boy.
Note Australia has done virtually nothing to ween itself off economic dependence on China.
Its a pity the US pulled out of the TPP, as that was an unstated anti-chinese trading block, and it could have applied some economic pressure.
Good riddance. "Free trade" is the reason we are in this mess.
Only beneficiaries of free trade would be corporations and other unscrupulous business types who would have used TPP to sue countries for legislation that hurt their profits (eg environmental protections), and ramp up labour exploitation and offshoring to the third world.
Modern free trade and neoliberalism is the number 1 threat to the west. It empowers our enemies whilst creating poverty and inequality in the west and destroying our sovereignty.
Doesn't help most of TPP was top secret and that most of its primary drafters and various committee members (85%) were from businesses and industries that would have been biggest beneficiaries.
