If the destruction of an ally would happen regardless of another government’s actions (because, as you said, China will get weapons from elsewhere), then concerns like “we shouldn’t profit off its destruction” are solely moral and/or ideological in nature. Thus being irrelevant for the sake of Realpolitik:
sell to China - you got some profit, but lost the ally
don’t sell to China - you got no profit but you still lost the ally
And it’s clear that USA follows Realpolitik when it comes to its foreign policy.
I also don’t think that the PRC even needs to weaponise itself further to annex Taiwan. What’s keeping the PRC at bay seems to be international repercussions, that are better addressed through soft power, not hard power.
Because of both things, I don’t think that Taiwan plays a role explaining those policies. I think that USA is trying to protect its internal industry against competition.
If the destruction of an ally would happen regardless of another government’s actions (because, as you said, China will get weapons from elsewhere), then concerns like “we shouldn’t profit off its destruction” are solely moral and/or ideological in nature. Thus being irrelevant for the sake of Realpolitik:
And it’s clear that USA follows Realpolitik when it comes to its foreign policy.
I also don’t think that the PRC even needs to weaponise itself further to annex Taiwan. What’s keeping the PRC at bay seems to be international repercussions, that are better addressed through soft power, not hard power.
Because of both things, I don’t think that Taiwan plays a role explaining those policies. I think that USA is trying to protect its internal industry against competition.