Kapitan, you said it yourself: China is a regional access denial force, but with the clear aim to become internationally potent as well.
You must count their coastal foiri8ng assets as well, p0lus their loandbased airforce, and their enormous landbased numbers of coastal anti-ship missiles.
If a DDG empties its vertical laucnh tubes, it mist go home and reload and come back, andntzat takes long time. The supply chains for China are very, very much smaller.
Their focus currently probably is the South Chinese sea, and the waters around Taiwan.
The US navy is set up globally, and even if they focus on a war zone and send most shiops there, they will nevertheless maintain significant ressources for other global reigons - and for protecting their long, long long supply lines. Which are very vulnerable.
So, I must stay more sceptical than you.
Even mnore since mentally the Chiense state and people and their huge numbers in platform and missiles allows them to digest significantly heavier losses, than the US home crow or military numbers.
Only one factor speaks against a war, and that is the fact that the war idnex of China is as low as that of the US. Both nations demographically are kind of unlikely, form that index' logic, to easily stumble into a h8ige, assive war with high losses.
The war index makes a statement on the ratio between very old, combat incapable men in as society, and young, combat-capoable and aggressive men. An index og one means that for 1000 old men dying, 1000 young men are there to take their place in the demogroahci structure. Both the US and China are short of 1 only (US 0.96 and China 0.99), whereas the countries where wars have occured in the past 40 years all have (had) indices as high as 4-6.5, means for thousand old men dyiong, 4-6.5 thousand young men are there to repoalce them in socity. A low war index means it is an old, overaged, not-eager-to-conquer and not-wanting to-suffer society.
Afghnaistan, both for the USSR and the US, were wars that they could not have won from the start on, becasue they were fighting aganst a hopelessly high war index, which over the wars even raised further.
The US has since WWII not taken on an real equal enemy anymore, it may have started wars against enemies it underestimated, but not knowingly against enemies of equal capability and striking power. And the US must pay more attention to the mood of the public at home, than China.
These considerations are decisive to make and to understand. Its the one thing that speaks against China going bollocks all of a sudden. On the other hand, like Western and Russian nations before, they too may not pay attention - or do: and start a war before their age structure in society detoriates even further against war - and start something because they think they can get away with it. This is an aspect I find impossible to make any predictions on. They politically now act far more aggressive than ten years ago I would have thought to be realistic to expect then. And they clearly plan to dominate the world, economically, logistically, and militarily, they build networks of alliances and bases all around, whereever nations are stupid enough to let them in.