You're conflating oil for coal in PRC energy composition, vast majority of fossil energy generation is from domestic thermal coal which PRC has centuries of domestic reserves for and over abundance of power plants just in case. Oil for energy is closer to rounding error. Oil is predominantly used for transportation, which can be titrated. Oil for heat can be replaced. Another 2m+ oil from RU pipeline possible.

>Taiwan would already be in China's hands

No, there's more benefit to building strength until overwhelming imbalance obvious to deter US intervention. In just last a few years, PRC / PLA went from lol bad to pacing power, to peer power to "past pacing" (in region). But nuclear strategic gap still need to be closed before PRC can feel comfortable.

>more than enough bases to land

US does not REMOTELY have enough bases, this is one of the largest/most crippling setback in current US strategic writings. The amount of airfields US have access too is limited to difficult to supply remote regions, all within stupendous amount of PRC land based fire range, because host countries like JP has consistently refused to provide US expanded basing across country. JP doesn't even have to refuse US landings, all they're doing (rather not doing) is simply not build out / expand basing like US wants, because what JP can currently offer simply isn't sufficient. US both doesn't have enough access, and what access they can potentially have is not enough, UNLESS partners dramatically expand infra, not like rinky dink air fields, but entire total war logistics chain, which they're not. That's why NGAD is struggling because the entire CONOP that makes them useful (AGILE basing in JP) doesn't exist, and if I were to guess, won't, because openning up JP main islands for more US military drama (rapes) is domestic JP politics suicide. Meanwhile PRC ability to expand homeland deployment (PRC big place) and arms race that can hit every inch of 1IC and increasingly beyond is unconstrained.

>China is smarter than to fire ICBMs at the US

And US smarter than to blow up dams in PRC. Or hit PRC mainland at all. Unless you know, they're not because it would be end of US. And a nuclear radiated US would lose all their hegemonic/strategic advantages built on decades of CONUS serenity. I think you underestimate how eager PRC wants to hit CONUS, because eroding perception of fortress america itself undermines US posture. TBH RU (and NKR) being in the way of nuking PRC also works to PRC advantage. And whose going to pick on PRC? Anyone assisting US in region would be nuclear crater too, meanwhile western desert and tibetan plateau prevents any land invasions.

> you are sadly mistaken

No, I think US planners smart enough not to go full retard against PRC who can hit back on US mainland, increasingly at scale. War crime is really immaterial to the broad point that if US with CONUS vunerability is deterred against mainland PRC attacks, because PRC is not Syria who can't hit back, hence Syria can be pushed around with relatively little consequence, vs threatening PRC mainland is existential for CONUS. US planners likely smart enough to keep targets to military and direct production chains to limit escalation, trying to limit PRC retalition to proportional strategic targets i.e. F35 plants, server farms etc. But even then US being #1 simply has more to lose. US will eat CONUS attacks, as in they won't escalate to nuclear because PRC sure as hell not going to be convinced by nuclear brinksmanship if mainland is hit. Remember, the ONLY reason US adversaries hasn't hit US back was they technically couldn't, once they can, they politically MUST because PRC domestic politics isn't going to not hit US if PRC mainland hit. If US disrupts PRC energy, US energy infra going bye bye too, because like US, PRC not going to sit there and "just eat it if attacked". All of which to it's as much about CONUS vunerability as deterring US with real threat, for the first time in century, of CONUS vunerability.

>if US wants them to be

A F15EX or F35s or F22s and all their associated tanking in region would likely be scrap on ground in openning salvo of PRC missiles. Of course US has bunker busters delivering platforms, but the problem is again, they have no safe/reliable way to deliver them with expanding PRC A2D2, which they are unlikely to dismantle because PRC force balance in region approaching overwhelming. The problem is US can't do what she "wants" against entire PLA complex stopping them, because US posture in region now weaker than PRC and trend/gap set to expand . US inventory of cruise missiles is 4 days of PRC cruise missile giga factory, which indicative scale of other acquisitions, i.e. interceptors, of which modern missile defense has near 100% success rate on subsonic cruise missiles. Again the problem is US doesn't have enough survivable basing to sortie enough air power (especially tanking) to deliver enough advanced munitions that can penetrate/satuate PRC A2D2, which itself US doesn't have enough of vs PRC. Like if US somehow found a way to preposition every piece of US hardware in Indopac, PRC cruise missile giga factory going brrrt for a few weeks is enough to destroy it all with spares to cripple US partners in region for assisting, hence most are not (as in not meaningfully outside of rhetoric and largely security theatre). And this is again circles back to why US isn't building enough ships, or NGADs, or whatever. Because it's increasingly obvious US+co simply can't out produce and out posture PRC in PRC's backyard. There are no good procurement choices, only the least bad, which is long range bombers like B21s and maybe subsurface for another decade.

Put it this way, US vs Iraq curbstomp in 90s required significant regional air basing, 5 carriers, took weeks, against adversary with generations old hardware and completely compromised IADS (french sold blueprints to US). PRC pop is like 80x larger than 90s Iraq, 100x larger by gdp, 100s times more industrially productive. Could US fight 80x Iraqs? What aobut 80 Iraqs that can hit back. The reality is US military is/was/has never been calibrated to fight adversary the size / scale of PRC. Ask yourself how much PRC would need to arm Cuba, Mexico, Canada (just entertain idea) to really threaten US. The answer is realistically no amount because US is larger than them all and homefield advantage is overwhelming vs logistics tooth/tail of fighting war of such a large adversary across ocean. Maybe 25-30 years ago when PRC military was a few Iraqs, now it's more Iraqs than US can realistically handle.