The problem with your argument is that in current times it is much more likely that China acts rationally than the US does.
A better argument would be that when China has "good enough" chips then they don't care about chip production in Taiwan. They will only care about sea access. So if Taiwan ends up as completely destroyed rock, then that is ok for China. They will see it as a much better result than other parts of China breaking away and becoming independent.
To follow up, Taiwan literally blocks their ability to see and defend against attacks coming from behind the Taiwanese island. It’s about observability and reducing easy beachheads.
On a more macro issue, it's also existential for the CCP because it shows the Chinese people (I'm talking the entire worldwide diaspora of people who call themselves Chinese) that there are indeed ways forward socially, culturally, technologically, economically, and most importantly, politically that are valuable to society that don't involve the CCP.
Hong Kong was a threat because it showed Chinese people directly that economic growth was possible without the CCP.
China has the biggest Navy in the world and they regularly circumnavigate Taiwan. They're not just sitting there on the mainland with binoculars wishing they could see what's on the other side.
> The problem with your argument is that in current times it is much more likely that China acts rationally than the US does.
Doesn't make his point less valid, in fact it makes it probably more valid. When other people are acting irrationally you might as well do so too since you can't predict what other people will do in response.
You are being economically rational. Not all human decisions are done through that lens.
"Thucydides found that people go to war out of 'honor, fear, and interest.'” — Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan
* https://acoup.blog/2019/12/05/collections-a-trip-through-thu...