My first reply was flagged. My question, is it okay for user to say that they strategically support China more than Taiwan and would hope U.S policy eventually follow suit?
I personally think a future where China annexes Taiwan would bring about a more stable and peaceful geopolitical relationship between China and the US because of three reasons.
1. The US is not threatened by China. The Pacific prevents any invasion of the America's, and China cannot blockade the US given its two coastlines and world class navy.
2. China is threatened by the US. It's ringed by US military bases and depends on oil shipping through the Indian Ocean.
3. China has no ideology of global expansion and conversion like the USSR, nor does it need more land and resources like the much smaller Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Taiwan (and frankly all of China's other disputes) are limited goals of a nationalist ideology from the 1940s and losing Taiwan won't trigger a dominoe effect of China annexing the rest of the world and threatening America or Europe.
In a future where Taiwan was annexed and the US has pulled it's bases back to Guam or Hawaii, I can't see any future flash points between the two nations. Rather, a much healthier and respectful relationship between two powerhouses that mind their own affairs instead of sticking weapons and provocations in each other's faces.
However, this line of reasoning requires accepting that the US should not act as a global defender of democracy worldwide regardless of cost or strategy, and that encouraging a democracy to spring up in the path of a unsettled conflict wasn't the wisest of choices.
Still, minority positions tend to be unpopular unless reality proves them to be true.
Vietnam and other countries (including Russia) are worried about China's territorial expansionism and annexing the South China Sea.
Public policy experts are worried about the failed policy of "appeasement" that was used in WW2. Basically territorial ambitions increase when concessions happen.
Taiwan is continues to be free to decide to unify with China by the ballet box though. If they have a free and fair election and decide to join China, the world will go along with it.
In the area the Russian population is dwindling and the Chinese population is increasing, so those watching the region are expecting China to 'salami slice' its way to control over that massive amount of land.
It would also bolster China's claim of being a 'near-Arctic state', so it's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll be moving to do this.
As for the worry about appeasement, that policy failed with Nazi Germany because the geopolitical balance of Europe required that they annex the land and agricultural capacity needed to become a major power. Any strategist could foresee that Germany would not have stopped at Austria and Czechoslovakia while leaving the farmlands of Poland and Eastern Europe. Appeasement was also to buy time for Britain to rearm after a devastating WW1. I do not believe this to be the case for China because there are no valuable agricultural lands to annex around them, and because modern technology has changed the nature of power projection where the winner is not the one with the bigger army but the one with the smarter army. Annexing economically unproductive land with unfriendly inhabitants is a very dumb move, unless it's holy land for the nationalist rhetoric of reunifying the Chinese nation and rejecting foreign pressure.
Lastly, China's neighbors have every right to be worried. But how does spending for their defense benefit your typical American citizen who's more interested in sending their kids to college than sending them to die for the maintenance of an overseas empire?
Now Taiwan is a vibrant democracy with the rule-of-law, free speech and world-leading industries the United States will stay allied to Taiwan. As they say: "In international relations, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests".